Part II: introduction, and the proof of apparitions, spirits and witches from Scripture, part 3 of 4

SECT. XII. Further proof of the Negotiation of Evil Spirits with their Clients from the History of the Magicians of Egypt; Mr. Wagstaffe, Mr. Webster, and the Authour of The Doctrine of Devils, their Evasions proposed and answered.

IN the General, they all say the same thing; viz. That the Magicians were Jugglers, who by their Tricks and Legerdemain, imposed upon Pharaoh and the AEgyptians. Mr. Wagstaffe is so modest, as not to describe the manner of the performance. But Mr. Webster thus; The Magicians holding a Rod in their hands, and seeming to throw it down upon the ground, how soon might they throw down an Artificial Serpent in its stead, and immediately and unperceivably make conveighance of the Rod, p. 154. This is his feat: and for the changing Water into Blood, and the producing of Frogs, he saith, they were so easie to be done after the same manner, that they need not any particular explication, p. 155. This is the main answer, after a great deal of Impertinence, and Mr. Webster hath done his business.

But the Authour of The Doctrine of Devils, hath devised a more particular way for this Juggle. 'Tis probable, he saith, that these Men having the Art or Knack of Making, Graving, or Carving the Pictures of Men, Beasts, Serpents, Reptiles, &c. had the Feat also of Colouring, Painting and Fucussing of them also, and so might easily, especially in the dark, or by their Juggling-Feats, as the Text intimates, make a Rod look like a Serpent, &c. p. 114. But besides these Knavish Painters, the Man hath found other Jugglers to help on the Deceit; Subtle and politick Oratours, who with fallacious Arguments, cunning pretences, and plausible Rhetorick could so disguise Truth, and flourish upon Knavery and falshood, that falshood should seem Truth, and Truth falshood, p. 115.

Whatever the Magicians of Pharaoh were, any one that considers these Answers, would take the Framers of them for Colourers, Changers, Perverters of the Face of things, as this Authour speaks, cunning Oratours, Jugglers, Hocus-Pocus, Hiccius-Doccius, whip the Serpents, Blood and Frogs are gone. But let us look a little nearer to the business, and to these subtle men, Witches of Oratours, and examine what they tell us in the light of the Text and impartial Reason.

The Text saith, Aaron cast down his Rod before Pharaoh, and before his Servants, and it became a Serpent, V. 10. And V. 11, 12. The Magicians of AEgypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every Man his Rod, and they became Serpents, but Aaron's Rod swallowed up their Rods. Now, say the Witch-Advocates, the Magicians were Jugglers; they did not in like manner, they did not cast down their Rods, but made conveighance of them, they were not Serpents but Pictures. Which are plain contradictions to the Text, arbitrary Figments, that have no ground. And if Men may seign what they will, and put what borrowed sense they please upon plain Relations of Fact, all History will be a Nose of Wax, and be eafily shaped as the Interpreter has a mind to have it.

Secondly, If this were so, and the Serpents were but Artificial Pictures; 'tis strange, that neither Pharaoh, nor his Servants should perceive the difference between the Carved or Painted Serpents and the real ones; except they suppose also that Pharaoh contrived the business in a dark Room on purpose, as the Authour of The Doctrine of Devils seems to intimate. And 'tis stranger yet, that neither Moses nor Aaron that were concerned to detect the Imposture that was so gross and thick, should not discern it, or if they did, 'tis as strange, that they should keep the Jugglers counsel, and say nothing of it.

Thirdly, Aarons Serpents are said to have swallowed up those of the Magicians. What, did they swallow the Wiars and Pictures? It seems they were very artificially done indeed, that the true Serpents mistook them for real ones, as the Birds once did the Painted Grapes. But it would be more wonderful yet, if all were but the Oratory of the Magicians, for then the Serpents ate their Words and Rhetorick.

Fourthly, Moses and Aaron turned the Rivers into Blood, V. 20. and the Magicians of AEgypt did so with their enchantments, V. 22. They caused Frogs to come up, and to cover the land, Ch. 8. V. 6. and the Magicians did so, and brought up Frogs on the Land of AEgypt, V. 7. Now, how did the Jugglers do this, with Painting and Fucussing; or how, by Legerdemain and Slight of Hand were the Waters made Blood, and the Frogs brought up out of the Rivers on the Land? To turn a little Water into the appearance of Blood, was not the thing that was like to what Moses and Aaron did, and to shew an Artificial Frog, Two or Three was not bringing up of Frogs on the Land of AEgypt, which implies, multitudes that covered the ground. So that the Hocus-Pocus Tricks, and Juggling and Painting will not colour this part of the Story. And I should wonder at Mr. Webster, if he did not afford so many occasions of wondring at him, when he passed this so slightly over, saying, p. 155. As to the changing Water into Blood, and the producing of Frogs, they were so easie to be done after the same manner, viz. by Wiers and Juggling, that they need not any particular explication, for by this the manner of their performance may most easily be understood. How shall one deal with these Men, and what will not their confidence affirm?

Fifthly, 'Tis very strange also how those Jugglers should know what signs Moses and Aaron would shew, and accordingly furnish themselves with counterfeit Serpents, Blood and Frogs against the time; or had they those always in their Pockets? If not, it was great luck for them that Moses and Aaron should shew those very Miracles first, that they were provided to imitate.

Sixthly and Lastly, If the Magicians did all this by Tricks and Juggling, may not one fear what Opinion these Men have of the same things done by Moses and Aaron? These indeed out-did the others in divers following Instances, but may not they say, that that was by their having more Cunning and Dexterity in the Art of Juggling? If they or their Proselytes have a mind to say thus, they may by their Principles, which will serve them to elude the History, in reference to Moses and Aaron, as well as it doth in relation to the Magicians. They may with as much modesty turn all into Allegory and Metaphor.

I think by all this it appears, that this shift of the Witch-Advocates is very vain, and that what the Magicians did, was not mere Juggling, much less only Politick Oratory and Rhetorick. As if those Magicians by their Eloquence could perswade Pharaoh and his Servants against their Senses, as these Patrons of Witches endeavour to do by us, they being the greatest Witches in their own sense that are extant, and some of them are belyed, if they are not so in other senses.

SECT. XIII. That what the Magicians of AEgypt did perform, was at least by an Implicit Confederacy with Evil Spirits.

VVEll! If there be any truth in the History, the Magicians were not only Couzeners and Hocus-Pocus Men; there was something done that was extraordinary beyond Mans Art and Contrivance, or the effects of ordinary Nature. And therefore must have either God, or some Spirit or Daemon, one or more for the Authour. The former no one saith, the Hand of God in this was only permissive. Therefore it is plain the Magicians did this by Spirits, Creatures of the Invisible World. The Text saith, by their enchantments, per arcana, the vulgar Latin reads. Which because it is a general word, Mr. Wagstaffe takes hold of it, and determines it to secret and sly Tricks, those of Legerdemain and Couzenage, when as it is as applicable to any kind of secret (and so to the Diabolical Art and Confederacy) as to his sense. And that it is so to be understood here, is plain from the matter of the History. By those arcana (others read, incantationes, veneficia) they did those strange things, viz. by secret Confederacy with Spirits, they obliged them to perform the wonders.

But what did the Spirits do, were the Serpents, Blood and Frogs real or apparent only? I am not obliged to say, who is of one Opinion, and who of another in this, it matters not. The reality of the performance is most easie, and most suitable to the Sacred Story, and there is no difficulty in conceiving that Spirits might suddenly conveigh Serpents, with which AEgypt abounded into the place of the Rods, which they might unperceivably snatch away after they were thrown down; This they could do, though the Magicians of themselves could not. And they might be provided for the performances by knowing the Command God had given Moses and Aaron, concerning the things he would have them do; which the Magicians could not know, at least not but by them.

And for the Blood and the Frogs, they might by Infusion, or a Thousand ways that we cannot tell, make the Water to all appearance Bloody, or perhaps really transmute some (we know not the extent of their powers.) And to bring up the Frogs from the Lakes and Rivers, was no hard thing for them to effect, though impossible for the Magicians to do by Tricks of Juggling. We see the sense of the History is plain, and easie in our way, but forced, harsh, contradictious, and most absurd in the Interpretation of the Hag-Advocates.

To make the Inference from these Magicians to my point, yet more plain and demonstrative, I shall surther take notice, that if we do not suppose a confederacy, and formal compact between them and the Spirits they act by, it must at least be granted that those Magicians had a way to oblige them to act, either by Words or Ceremonies, which they have bound themselves to attend in order to further familiarity with the persons that so employ them, and at last to explicit Compacts: And even this is sufficient for what I would inferr.

I have thus dispatcht a great Argument briefly, and yet I hope fully; Mr. Webster is after his manner very voluminous about it. But all he hath said, in Five or Six Leaves in Folio to the purpose, is in those few Lines I have recited. All the rest is sensless, rambling Impertinence, amusing his Readers with Actives and Passives, Mecassaphims, Hartummims, Talesmans, wonderful Cures, and the vertues of Plants, telling Stories, and citing scraps from this Man, and from that, all which serve only for Ostentation, and the Deception of the injudicious, but signify nothing to any purpose of Reasoning.

SECT. XIV. The other grand Instance of Confederacy with Evil Spirits, in the Witch of Endor, whom Saul consulted. A brief and plain Narration of the Story.

I Come to another grand Instance, viz. that of the Witch of Endor. The Story of her is related, 1 Sam. 28. and is briefly thus. Samuel was dead, v. 3. and the Philistines gathered themselves against Saul, and pitcht in Gilboa, v. 4. Saul on this was much afraid, v. 5. and enquired of the Lord, but had no answer from him, v. 6. Upon this he bid his Servants find him out a Woman that had a Familiar Spirit, that he might enquire of her. They told him of one at Endor, v. 7. He disguised himself, and with two Men by night went to her, desired her to divine unto him by her Familiar Spirit, and to bring up him whom he should name, v. 8. The Woman first excused her self, minding him how dangerous such a business might be to her, since Saul had cut off those that had Familiar Spirits, and the Wizzards out of the Land. So that she was afraid that this Proposition of his was a snare for her Life, v. 9. But Saul assured her by swearing, that no harm should come to her for this thing, v. 10.

She then askt him whom she should bring up, and he said Bring me up Samuel, v. 11. Samuel accordingly begins to appear, and when the Woman saw him, she cried with a loud voice, being much surprised, it seems, to see Samuel in good earnest, whom she probably expected not, but some Familiar in his likeness. By this she knew Saul, v. 12. He heartens her again, and asks whom she saw. She answers, she saw Gods Ascending out of the Earth, an usual Hebraism, the Plural for the Singular Number, Gods, to wit, a Spirit, v. 13. Saul asks what Forme he was of, she answered, an Old Man cometh up, and he is covered with a Mantle. Then Saul perceived it was Samuel, and he bowed himself to him to the ground, v. 14.

Samuel ask't why he had disquieted him to bring him up? He declares the distress he was in, and his desire to know what he was to do, v. 15. Samuel reproves him, and declares his Fate, viz. That the Lord had rent the Kingdome from him, and given it to David, v. 17. That the Israelites should be delivered into the hands of the Philistins, and that Saul and his Sons should to morrow be with him, viz. in the state of the Dead, as eventually it was, v. 19. This is the History, and one would think it speaks very plainly, but nothing is plain to prejudice. The Patrons of Witches labour hard to avoid this evidence, and I shall propose and consider their shifts and slights of answering.

SECT. XV. The Evasion of Mr. Reginald Scot, concerning the Witches Closet, proposed and confuted.

MR. Reginald Scot, the father of the modern Witch-Advocates, orders the matter thus. When Saul, saith he, had told her that he would have Samuel brought up to him, she departed from his presence into her Closet, where doubtless she had her Familiar, to wit, some lewd crafty Priest, and made Saul stand at the door like a Fool (as it were with his Finger in a hole) to hear the Couzening Answers, but not to see the Couzening handling thereof, and the conterseiting of the matter. And so goeth she to work, using ordinary words of Conjuration, &c. So belike after many such words spoken, she saith to her self; Lo! now the matter is brought to pass. I see wonderful things. So as Saul hearing these words longed to know all, and asked her what she saw. Whereby you know that Saul saw nothing, but stood without like a Mome, whilest she plaid her part in her Closet, as may most evidently appear by the Twenty first Verse of this Chapter, where it is said, Then the Woman came out to Saul, &c. Scot, p. 108.

Now this is not interpreting a Story, but making one. For we read nothing of her Closet, or her going from Saul into it, nothing of the crafty Priest she had there, or of Sauls standing at the door like a Fool, like a drowned Puppy Mr. Webster has it (very respectful Language for a Prince in distress!) nothing of the words of Conjuration, or of the Womans talk to her self, but all this is Whimsey and Fiction.

And according to this way of interpreting, a Man may make what he will of all the Histories in the Bible, yea in the World. If one may supply, and put in what he pleaseth, any thing may be made any thing.

But Mr. Scot saith, it evidently appears that Saul saw nothing, but stayed without like a Mome, whilest she played her part in her Closet. It evidently appears by the Twenty first Verse of this Chapter, where 'tis said, Then the Woman came out unto Saul. Is it not evident from hence, that she had a Closet, how else should she come out? But the mischief of it is, there is nothing of coming out in the Text, or any Version of it. Our Translation is, And the Woman came unto Saul. The vulgar Latine, Ingressa est, she came in, which implies that she went out of doors rather, than into her Closet. The Septuagint read [non-Latin script], being the same sense with the vulgar Latine. The Chaldee Paraphrase simply she came. So the Syriack and the Arabick: But we find nothing of coming out any where but in the Discoverer. So that here is a Text made too, as well as many a groundless Comment.

But whether she only came to Saul, or in or out to him, it matters not much, for it implies only that she withdrew, while Saul Communed with Samuel, out of respect, and after the Communication, she returned and found the King in great disorder, and what is this to a Closet?

SECT. XVI. Two of Mr. Websters Arguments for the Witches Closet proposed and answered.

BUt Mr. Webster pursues the business in the behalf of the Discoverer; First, If they were in the same Room, and Samuel a visible Object, how comes it to pass that Saul saw him not? Mr. Glanvil, saith he, must pump to find it out, p. 169. But doth not Mr. Webster know, that it is usual in Apparitions (and he owns there are such) for the Spirit to appear to one, when it is not visible to another, though in the same Room, and every ways capable of seeing? In the Famous Story of Walker and Sharp, recited by him, p. 299, 300. which he confesseth to be of undoubted verity, he saith, it was reported that the Apparition did appear in Court to the Judge, or Fore-man of the Jury (and I have from other hands very credible attestation that it was so) but the rest saw nothing. Many other well attested Relations of this kind speak of the like, and there are Innumerable Stories of people that have their second sight as they call it, to wit, a faculty of seeing Spectres when others cannot discern them. In which there is nothing, either impossible, or unlikely. And why then should there be need of so much pumping to answer this Objection?

Samuel it seems appeared to the Woman a little before Saul saw him, shewing himself so, it may be, to prepare Saul for the terrible sight by degrees, lest the suddenness of it might have affrighted him into an incapacity of hearing what he had to say to him. Or it may be the Body of the Woman, or some other thing in the Room might interpose between Saul, and the first appearance of Samuel, or he might be at an unfit distance, or out of due light to see presently as she did. So that there is no need of supposing them to be in two Rooms on this account.

But Secondly, He argues further for the Closet or another Room; The Woman cryed out with a loud Voice when she saw Samuel; What need of that, saith he, if they were in one Room, might not an ordinary tone make him to have heard her? 'Tis like it might, but that was not the cause of her crying out, but her surprise to see Samuel (if it were the real Samuel) when she expected only her Familiar, appearing in some resemblance of him. And 'tis like there were circumstances in this Apparition, which she had never seen before, that might on the sudden affright and amaze her. And if it were Samuel indeed, which is very probable, the sight of him assored her that the Inquirer was Saul. For though she might not conclude it presently from his requiring her to raise Samuel, yet when he really and unexpectedly appeared, it was plain that he was come upon some great Errand, and with whom could he probably have such business as with Saul? So that she seeing him, the importance of his appearance, and the Relation he had to Saul, brought the King presently to her mind, and with him her fears, and that this was one cause of her crying out, is plainly intimated in the next words. And the […]oman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou decerved me, for thou art Saul, v. 12. And that she was affrighted at that knowledge, is implied in Sauls assuring her again, against her fears in his immediate answer. And the King said unto her, […]Be not afraid, v. 13.

Besides this, there is another thing that may be collected from the Text, which might occasion her astonishment and crying out. For as soon as Saul had said, Bring me up Samuel, v. 11. it immediately follows, v. 12. And when the Woman saw Samuel, she cryed with a loud voice. It seems he appeared before she had performed her usual Conjurations (so little ground is there for what Mr. Scot talks of her words of Conjuration, and those she spake to her self) and upon that she was surprised and affrighted.

SECT. XVII. Other Arguments of Mr. Webster for a Room distinct from that Saul was in, proposed and answered.

MR. Websters third Argument to prove a Closet, is that it had been incongruous for Saul to have askt what sawest thou, if they had been in one Room. But what is the incongruity, or what the wonder, if one in his condition should speak incongruously?

His Fourth and Fifth Arguments, are to prove that Saul had yet seen nothing, when he askt the Woman upon her Out-cry, what she had seen. They prove that she saw the Apparition first, which is granted, but her being in another Room, cannot thence be inferred, as I have shewn, though that be the thing he should make out, or all is impertinent.

The Sixth Argument is, that after all, Samuel was but coming up. An Old Man cometh up, which proves nothing for Mr. Webster but against him; For now, she shews him to Saul. She saw the first beginning of his appearing, which Saul did not. When he was risen higher out of the Earth, she shews him to the King, who, 'tis said, perceived then it was Samuel, and bowed himself, v. 14. which is very easie and congruous, applied to one and the same Room. And what then makes Mr. Webster insult in the Conclusion of this Argument in these words; Now let Mr. Glanvil consider, and answer whether it be not only intimated, but clearly holden forth in the Text, that either they were in two Rooms, or that nothing visible did appear before Saul, p. 171. His seeing nothing at first I grant, but the Two Rooms there is no ground for, and he doth not prove it. Whether he did not see Samuel after, I shall now inquire. Hitherto I have nothing to do, but with the conceit of the Closet, or the other Room, which Mr. Scot made for the Woman, and Mr. Webster endeavours to uphold, with much good will, but little success.

SECT. XVIII. Convincing Argmuments brought to prove that Saul saw Samuel, which frustrates the Figment of two Rooms.

AFter all, if he really saw the Apparition, the Figment of the two Rooms is gone, or at least signifies nothing to their purpose. This the Text intimates plainly. She said, An Old Man cometh up, and he is covered with a Mantle, and it follows, And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself, v. 14.

He perceived it was Samuel, he perceived it, saith Mr. Webster, by the Description of the Woman. But she had only said, An Old Man cometh up covered with a Mantle; This is but a very General Description, and why must that needs notify Samuel? Could the Devil represent no other Old Man in a Mantle, or could none of the dead appear so but Samuel only? By these words alone Saul could not certainly perceive that it was he. But he perceived this so, that he could not but know and acknowledge it as the Hebrew word seems to imply. I say this word [perceived] implies more than bare seeing. 'Tis that and somewhat else, viz. that he saw him so, as to be convinced that it was he indeed, the judgment was added to the sense. So that Mr. Webster's Objection, that the word was not he [saw] it was Samuel, is of no weight, he [perceived] implies that he saw it so as to be assured. If the saying of the Woman had been all, the assurance had been none at all, and Saul could not have perceived or understood any certainty of the thing from it.

But secondly, it appears yet further, that his perceiving did imply seeing; For he stooped with his Face to the ground, and bowed himself. Now, what did Saul make this respectful reverence to, if he saw nothing? Was it to a Samuel in his fancy? Mr. Webster saith, Surely in rational consequence it could be nothing else, p. 171. This is something an unusual courtesie to bare Idea's and Imaginations. But Mr. Webster gives a reason: All that the Woman had done and said, being undeniably lyes and cheats, this also in just and right reason must be judged to be so also. Which is assuming the thing to be proved.

SECT. XIX. That it was a real Apparition, not a confederate Knave, as Mr. Webster fancies, that Saul saw and did obeysance to.

BUt did she not turn out her confederate Knave to act the part of Samuel? and was not this he to whom Saul bowed? This Mr. Webster offers as part of his answer. The Woman v. 14. describes Samuel in the form of an Old Man covered with a Mantle. Such a shape she must have put the confederate Knave into. It may be it was an Old fellow, or she made him look Old, but let that pass. But where got she the Mantle? A Sacerdotal Habiliment it was, according to Josephus. Had the Woman a Wardrobe of all Habits for all purposes? or was it some short Cloak of her own, that she threw on him? We will suppose either that will serve Mr. Websters turn best. But how did the fellow himself, or the Old Quean for him change his Visage into the likeness of Samuel, or how alter his voice so, as to make Saul, who so well knew Samuel, to believe it was even he? These are hard Questions.

But if we should so far gratify Mr. Scot, Mr. Webster and the rest, as not to press with such untoward Queries; yet one cannot chuse but ask how the confederate Knave came to foretel truly such contingent things, as that the Israelites should be vanquished by the Philistines, and Saul and his Sons slain on the morrow, as v. 19. How could the Cheat, or the Woman in another Room tell this? Why! saith Mr. Wagstasse, he spake it at a venture, and He or the Witch gave a shrewd guess to the sequel, saith Mr. Scot. But what ground was there for conjecture? and since there was none, the Confederate might as well have chose to have told Saul, that he and his Sons should live and be victorious; and this, if he were so cunning a fellow, as these cunning Men make him, he would have done. For the Witches business and his, was to get by their practice, and the likelier way to a good reward, had been to have Prophesied grateful and pleasant things to the troubled King; and if the Prophesier knew nothing of the event, he might as well have chosen the good, as the evil side. Which as it had been for his Interest, it had been also for the better saving of the credit of his predictions. For if he had foretold the Kings good success and victory, the Woman and He, the Confederate, in consequence had been sure of reputation and favour, and further rewards, if it had happened so; but no evil could have befaln them from the contrary success. For if Saul were killed, the falshood of the prediction would be buried with him (for we read not that the two Servants were at this Communication, which in all likelihood was private) and no other evil like to ensue.

So that if it were a Confederate Knave, as the Witch-Advocates have contrived that made the answers, he was not so cunning as Mr. Scot, Mr. Webster and the rest pretend, but indeed a very silly Juggler. He speaks very severe and disobliging things, and such as were not like to redound to his advantage, and indeed such things they were, as do not at all look as if they proceeded from a confederate Couzener. They have that Gravity, Majesty, Religion and Vertue in them that became the true Samuel, and are very unlike the words of a vicious cheating Knave.

To which may be added, that this Woman, though otherwise an ill one, seems to have been of a kind and benign nature, by the courteous entertainment she gave the afflicted Prince, and Josephus extolls her much for her good Nature. So that it is very improbable, that she would by her self or her Confederate, lay such an heavy Load of Trouble and Desperation upon the King, that was in such distress before. I think all these things put together, are abundantly sufficient to disprove, and shame the ungrounded fansie of the Witch-Advocates, that all was done by a Confederate. And consequently it was a real Apparition that Saul saw, and did civil obeysance to.