Part 4

1. Because there is no opinion (especially about created things) but it hath once been new; and if an opinion should be rejected meerly because of novelty, then it will follow, that either all opinions might have been rejected for that very reason, or that novelty is no safe ground only, why an opinion should be opposed or rejected.

2. Antiquity and Novelty are but relations _quoad nostrum intellectum, non quoad naturam_; for the truth, as it is fundamentally in things _extra intellectum_, cannot be accounted either old or new. And an opinion, when first found out and divulged, is as much a truth then, as when the current of hundreds or thousands of years have passed since its discovery. For it was no less a truth, when in the infancy of Philosophy it was holden, that there was generation and corruption in Nature, in respect of Individuals, than it is now: so little doth Time, Antiquity, or Novelty alter, change, confirm, or overthrow truth; for _veritas est temporis filia_, in regard of its discovery to us or by us, who must draw it forth _è puteo Democriti_. And the existence of the _West-Indies_ was as well before the discovery made by _Columbus_ as since, and our ignorance of it did not impeach the truth of its being, neither did the novelty of its discovery make it less verity, nor the years since make it more: so that we ought simply to examine, whether an opinion be possible or impossible, probable or improbable, true or false; and if it be false, we ought to reject it, though it seem never so venerable by the white hairs of Antiquity; nor ought we to refuse it, though it seem never so young, or near its birth. For as St. _Cyprian_ said: _Error vetustatis est vetustas erroris_.

[Sidenote: Advanc. of Learn. l. 1. c. 5.]

3. In regard of Natural Philosophy, and the knowledge of the properties of created things, and the knowledge of them, we preposterously reckon former Ages, and the men that lived in them, the Ancients; which in regard of production and generation of the Individuals of their own Species are so; but in respect of knowledge and experience, this Age is to be accounted the most ancient. For as the learned Lord _Bacon_ saith: “Indeed to speak truly, _Antiquitas seculi, juventus mundi_,” Antiquity of time is the youth of the World. Certainly our times are the ancient times, when the World is now ancient, and not those which we count ancient, _ordine retrogrado_, by a computation backward from our own times; and yet so much credit hath been given to old Authors, as to invest them with the power of Dictators, that their words should stand, rather than admit them as Consuls to give advice.

[Sidenote: _Rule 3._]

3. It is not safe nor rational to resolve to stick to our old imbibed opinions, nor wilfully to reject those that seem new, except we be fully satisfied, from indubitable grounds, that what we account old is certainly true, and what we reckon to be new is undoubtedly false. And this will appear to be a truth, partly from the weakness of their arguments, that seem utterly to condemn all recession from ancient opinions, as vain, foolish, and unnecessary; as also from other positive reasons.

1. Some give the reason why they will not recede from an opinion that their Predecessors held; for that their Forefathers were as wise, if not wiser than they. But this, if strictly considered, is very lame and defective; for their Predecessors were but men, and so were liable both to active and passive deception, and were not exempted from the common frailty of Mankind, who are all subject to errours. And therefore, unless they were assured that their Ancestors in former Ages, held the certain and undoubted grounds of truth, it is nothing of reason in them, but meer perversness of will, rather obstinately _errare cum patribus_, than to learn to follow the truth with those that are coetaneous with them, which is foolish and irrational. Further, there are more helps now, and means to attain the knowledge of Verity, than were in the days when their Ancestors lived, and it must be a kind of the greatest madness to shut their eyes, that the light of truth may not appear unto them.

2. This kind of reasoning hath no more of reason in it, than if one should say, that because his Grandfather and great Grandfather were blind or lame, therefore they will be so too: or that their Ancestors never learned the Greek or Latine Tongues, nor to write or read, neither will they learn any more than they did: or that their Predecessors were ill husbands and unthrifts, and that therefore they will continue the same courses: or that because their Forefathers followed drunkenness and luxury, therefore they will continue the same cariere of vices, as many of our debauched persons do now adays, having no better reasons to alledge for their exorbitant and vicious courses, but what the Prophet condemned, _The fathers have eaten sowr grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge_.

3. How far would they run back to state the beginning of their Ancestors? If as far as their first Originals, then they must all be Savages, Barbarians, and Heathens. And if they state it distant from their first Originals, then their Predecessors had the same reason to have continued, as those did that preceded them. But if their Ancestors varied from, and left the steps and opinions of those that went before them, then if they will do as their Ancestors did, they must leave their courses and opinions, as they had done of those that preceded them.

[Sidenote: _August. lib. de Liber. Arbitrio._]

4. Some say they cannot recede from the opinions of their Predecessors, because it would be a shame and disgrace unto them. But that which we call shame and disgrace consists in the opinion of others, and we ought not to receive errour, or reject truth, by reason of the censures or opinions of others: _Si de veritate scandalum sumitur, utilius permittitur nasci scandalum, quàm veritas relinquatur_. And to leave an errour to entertain truth, is so far from being a shame and a disgrace, that there cannot be a greater honour or glory: for _errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare belluinum ac diabolicum est_.

[Sidenote: _Rule 4._]

4. Those effects that seem strange and wonderful, either in respect of Art or Nature, require much diligence truly to discover and find out their causes; and we ought not rashly to attribute those effects to the Devil, whose causes are latent or unknown unto us: and that for these grounds.

[Sidenote: _De Inject. mater. pag. 597._]

[Sidenote: _Ibid. pag. 598._]

1. It hath been common almost in all Ages, not only for the vulgar, but also for the whole rabble of Demonographers and Witchmongers to ascribe those strange and wonderful effects, whether arising from Art or Nature, unto the worst of Gods Creatures, if they did not themselves understand their causes, and to censure the Authors that writ of them, as Conjurers and Magicians, as I have made manifest in my former Instances, and might be further made good and illustrated by the effects of healing by the Weapon-salve, the Sympathetick Powder, the Curing of divers Diseases by Appensions, Amulets, or by Transplantation, and many other most admirable effects both of Art and Nature, which by these self-conceited Ignorants are all thrown upon the Devils back, and he made the Author and effector of them, as though he had a kind of omnipotent power: of which the learned Philosopher and Physician _Van Helmont_ gives us this account: “_Credo equidem cum pietate pugnare, si Diabolo tribuatur potestas naturam superans. Verum naturæ ignari præsumunt se naturæ secretarios per librorum lectionem: quicquid autem ipsos latet, vel adynaton, vel falsum, vel præstigiosum, atq; diabolicum esto._” And a little after he adds this: “_Pigritiæ saltem enim immensæ inventum fuit, omnia in Diabolum retulisse quæ non capimus, nec velim Diabolum invocatum, ut nostris satisfaciat quæstionibus per temerariam potestatum attributionem._”

2. Whosoever shall read _Pancirollus de rebus memoralibus noviter repertis_, may easily be satisfied, what strange and stupendious things Art and the Inventions of men have produced in these latter Ages. And no man can rationally doubt, but that many more as strange or far more wonderful, may in Ages to come be found out and discovered; for there is a kind of bottomless depth in Arts, whether Liberal or Mechanical, that yet hath not been founded, but lye hid and unknown unto men. And if these for their wonderfulness should (as former Ages have ignorantly done) be ascribed unto the power of Satan, and their Authors accused of Conjuring and Diabolical Magick, no greater wrong could be done unto Art and Artists, and it would be a kind of blasphemy to attribute these stupendious effects (as the Vulgar and Witchmongers use to do) unto the Devil, the worst of Gods Creatures, and the Enemy of Mankind.

[Sidenote: _Pag. 103._]

[Sidenote: Rom. 1. 20.]

[Sidenote: _De Civit. Dei lib. 10._]

3. The third argument I shall take from Mr. _Glanvil_ (which is the greatest piece of truth in all his Treatise) and convert and retort it against him: and is this (he saith) _We are ignorant of the extent and bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities._ Now if we be ignorant of the extent and bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities, then it must needs be folly, madness, and derogative against Gods power in Nature, to attribute those effects to wicked, fallen, and degenerated Demons, that we do not know but are produced by the course of Nature. And to ascribe the products of Nature to such wicked Instruments is blasphemous, in depriving Nature of the honour due unto her, and robbing God of the honour and glory belonging unto him, for the wonderful power wherewith he hath endowed his Creatures, who were all made to shew forth his power and Godhead, _and the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-work_: and as one said very well, _Natura creatrix est quædam vis & potentia divinitùs insita, alia ex aliis in suo genere producens_. So that the honour that is due unto the Creator, Conserver, and Orderer of Nature ought not to be ascribed unto the Devils; for in doing this, the Witchmongers become guilty of Idolatry, and are themselves such Witches as are mentioned in the Old Testament, who by their lying Divinations led the people after them to follow Idols; therefore the effects that belong unto Nature, are to be attributed to Nature, and the effects that Devils produce, are to be ascribed unto them, and not one confounded with another. And much to this purpose the learned Father hath a very considerable passage: “_Quicquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profectò minus est quàm totus hic mundus, i. e. cœlum & terra, & omnia quæ in eis sunt, quæ certè Deus fecit: nam & omni miraculo quod fit per hominem, majus miraculum est homo. Quamvis igitur miracula visibilium naturarum videndi assiduitate vilescunt, tamen ea quum sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis rarísq; majora sunt._”

[Sidenote: Job 1. 11. & 2. 5.]

[Sidenote: 2 Pet. 2. 4.]

[Sidenote: _August. super Psal._]

4. Though these men should believe the power of the Devil to be great by his Creation, and not lessened by his Fall (which is doubtful or false) yet can he not exert, or put this power into execution, but when, where, as oft, and in what manner, as God doth send, order, direct, and command him: and could not enter into the herd of Swine, until that Christ had ordered and commanded him; nor to touch _Job_ or afflict him either in his goods or body, until that God had given him licence and order with express limitation how far he should proceed, and no further. In all which there appeareth nothing at all of his power, but his malice and evil will; and what was effected, was the hand of the Lord, and he but the bare Instrument to execute and perform the command. Therefore to ascribe to the Devil the efficiency of those operations we do not clearly understand, is to allow him a kind of Omnipotency, and both to rob God and Nature of that which belongeth unto them; for the Almighty doth work whatsoever he pleases both in Heaven and Earth, and it is he that worketh all in all. And the Devil is but as Gods Executioner to fulfil his will in tempting men, and punishing the wicked, and can act nothing but as God commands him, except the acts of his wicked and depraved will; for he is with all his Angels delivered into chains of darkness to be reserved unto Judgment. To this purpose there is a very true and Christian saying of St. _Augustine_ in these words: “_Diabolus plerumq; vult nocere, & non potest, quia potestas ista est sub potestate: nam si tantum posset nocere Diabolus quantum vult, aliquis justorum non remaneret._”

[Sidenote: _Rule 5._]

5. The last Rule I shall observe is, That men, if they mean to profit by reading Controversies of this nature, they must prudently and deliberately consider the design that Authors have had in writing. For though it be the general pretence of all, that they write to confute errours, and to maintain truth, yet very few in Disputes of this nature have sincerely performed this pretended end. For some have written (as we shall hereafter make manifest in due place) upon designed purpose, thereby to establish some points in their corrupted and superstitious Religion. Some because of their own lucre and profit arising by the upholding of these opinions of the great power and performances of Witches, as did all the Inquisitors and their Adherents, having a share in the condemned Witches goods. Others have written in these Subjects meerly for ostentation and vain-glory, to get a name that they were learned and able persons: of all which the judicious Readers ought to beware of, and to consider. There is another main scandal that Witchmongers usually (especially of late) cast upon those that oppose their gross, impious, and blasphemous opinions; but I cannot seasonably give answer unto it, untill I have laid down the state of the question, upon which the substance of this Treatise is grounded, and therefore shall proceed to its Explication.

CHAP. II.

_Of the Notion, Conception, and Description of Witches and Witchcraft, according to divers Authors, and in what sense they may be granted, and in what sense and respect they are denied._

Those that are Masters in Ethicks teach us, that every Vertue hath on either side one Vice in the extreme, and that Vertue only consists in the mean, which how hard that mean is to be kept in any thing, the Writings and Actions of the most Men do sufficiently inform us. This is manifest, that not many years ago the truth of Philosophy lay inchained in the Prisons of the Schools, who thought there was no proficiency to be made therein, but only in their Logical and Systematical ways: so that (in a manner) all liberty was taken away both in writing and speaking, and nothing was to be allowed of that had not the Seal of Academick Sanction. And now when Philosophy hath gotten its freedom, to expatiate through the whole Sphere of Nature, by all sorts of inquiries and tryals, to compleat a perfect History of Nature, some are on the other hand grown so rigid and peremptory, that they will condemn all things that have not past the test of Experiment, or conduce not directly to that very point, and so would totally demolish that part of Academick and Formal Learning that teacheth men Method and the way of Logical procedure in writing of Controversies, and handling of Disputes. Whereas what is more necessary and commendable for those that treat of any controverted point in Writing or in other Disputations, than a clear and perspicuous Method, a right and exact stating of the Question in doubt, defining or describing the terms that are or may be equivocal, and dividing the whole into its due and genuine parts, distinguishing of things one from another, limiting things that are too general, and explaining of every thing that is doubtful? Those that would totally take away this so profitable and excellent a part of Learning, are not of my judgment, nor can be excused for having run into that extreme that is extremely condemnable. Let Experimental Philosophy have its place and due honour; and let also the Logical, Methodical, and Formal ways of the Academies have its due praise and commendation, as being both exceedingly profitable, though in different respects; otherwise, in writing and arguing, nothing but disorder and confusion will bear sway.

I have premised thus much, because the most of the Authors that have treated about this knotty and thorny Subject of Witches and Witchcraft, have been as confused and immethodical as any. For whereas the learned Orator _Cicero_ tells us, that _omnis discursus à definitione debet proficisci_; and that it is also true, that what is not aptly and fitly defined or described, as far as the Subject will admit of, is never perfectly understood: yet have the most of these Authors (which are numerous) laid down no perfect description of a Witch or Witchcraft, nor explained fully what they meant by that name, notion, or conception. And therefore, lest I become guilty of the same fault, I shall lay down what the most considerable Authors that have treated of this Subject, do mean or intend by this word _Witch_, and _Witchcraft_, and shall fully explain in what notion or sense I either allow or deny them, and their actions, and that in this order, and in these Particulars following.

[Sidenote: _Lib. 14. method. c. 9._]

[Sidenote: _Ibid. c. 1._]

1. Though an argument taken _à denotatione nominis_ be of little weight or validity, and that the industrious and sharp-witted person _Galen_ doth seem to make little account of words, that is, in this respect, when we would only understand the nature of things, yet in another respect he concludeth thus: “_Verùm qui alterum docere volet quæ ipse tenet, huic prorsus nominibus propter res uti est opus._” Now the handling of Controversies is chiefly and principally to inform others, and teach them the truth, and to discover errours; therefore in this respect the explication and denotation of words is exceeding profitable and necessary: and so _Plato in Cratylo_ tells us: “_Nomen itaq; rerum, substantiam docendi discernendiq; instrumentum est._” And it being a manifest truth, that words are but the making forth of those notions that we have of things, and ought to be subjected to things, and not things to words: if our notions do not agree with the things themselves, then we have received false _Idola_ or images of them; but if we have conceived them aright, and do not express them fitly and congruously, then we shall hardly make others understand us aright, nor can clearly open unto them the doctrine that we would teach them.

2. But to come to the signification and acceptation of the words that those Authors, who have magnified and defended the power of Witches, have used to express their notions by, we shall find them to be so far fetcht, so metaphorical, and improperly applied, that no rational or understanding man can tell us what to make of them. And if we take the notion, as they do, of a killing and murthering Witch, with the rest of the adjuncts, which they couple with it, we shall not be able to find a proper and significative word, either in the Hebrew, Greek, Latine, French, Spanish, Italian, or High-Dutch, but a multitude or a _Ferrago_ of words, whereof not one doth properly signifie any such thing, as they would make us believe, by the notion that they maintain of a Witch: of which we shall principally note these.

[Sidenote: Lament. 4. 3.]

1. For the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament we shall not mention them here, but afterward, where we speak of the mistranslation of them, and therefore shall pursue them in the Latine, and other Languages. And first they sometimes use the word _Lamia_ in the Latine, Λάμια in Greek, which _Gesner_ and others tell us doth signifie a terrestrial Creature, or a voracious fish, as also a Spectrum or Phantasm. And this was supposed to be a Creature with a face like a Woman, and feet like a Horse or an Ass, such as (indeed) neither is, nor ever was _in rerum natura_, but was only a figment devised to affright children withal. But if we will believe Poetical Fables, the Romances of _Philostratus_ concerning _Apollonius_, or the lying Diary of his Man _Damis_, we must take it to be a Spirit or Apparition, such as the Greeks called _Empusæ_, that went upon one leg, and had eyes that they could take forth, and set in, when they pleased. And such a monstrous Fable and Lye was a sufficient ground for doting Witchmongers to build their incredible stories of the power and actions of Witches upon, having no proper word for such a Witch as they falsely believe and suppose. Though there be a Text in the Lamentations of _Jeremiah_, that hath given occasion or colour to this vain opinion, especially as the vulgar Latine renders it, which is thus: _Sed & Lamiæ nudaverunt mammam, lactaverunt catulos suos. Filia populi mei crudelis, quasi struthio in deserto._ The French render it, _The Dragons have made bare their breasts_: and so have also the Italians in their Translation retained the words Dragon and Ostrich; and also the Septuagint render the words δράχοντες and στρουθίον. And _Luther_ in his Translation hath kept the same words, though the Germans call =Lamia Ein Rachtsgeist=. But our own Translation hath come more near the truth: _Even the Sea-monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the Daughter of my people are become cruel like the Ostriches in the wilderness._ And _Arias Montanus_ gives it thus: _Etiam draco——‏תנין‎ Tannin_ (which signifieth a Dragon, Serpent, Whale, or other Sea-creatures) _solverunt mammam, lactaverunt catulos suos: Filia populi mei in crudelem, veluti ululæ in deserto._ But none hath come up close to the mark but _Junius_ and _Tremellius_, who render the place thus: _Etiam Phocæ præbent mammam, lactant catulos suos, quomodo filia populi mei, propter crudelem inimicum, est similis ululis in deserto._ And the Notes upon the place do make it plain: “_Vox quidem Hebræa latè patet, significans serpentes & reptilia magna, sive terrestria sive aquatilia; sed cùm non omnium reptilium sint mammæ, neq; aquaticorum sint ii quos Propheta vocat catulos; necesse fuit hunc locum ad Phocas, id est marinos vitulos accommodari, qui à natura sint quasi Amphibii. Nam Draconibus accommodari non potest, cùm volucrium solus vespertilio mammas habeat: serpentium terrestrium nulla species mammata est, ac proinde hæc ad marinum istud genus referri debent._”

[Sidenote: Isa. 34. 14.]

[Sidenote: _Gesn. de Avib. l. 3. p. 241._]

[Sidenote: _Hist. Anat. Cent. 1. p. 18._]

2. Another far fetcht and improperly applied name to Witches, is _Strix_, and so some Authors call them _Striges_; when as the word _Strix_ doth properly signifie a nocturnal bird, _à stridendo sic dicta_, that do use to suck the dugs of Goats, and also of young children, which we shall shew hereafter to be a Truth, and no Fable, as _Ovid_ saith,

_Nocte volant, puerósq; petunt nutricis egentes, Et vitiant cunis corpora rapta suis. Carpere dicuntur lactentia viscera rostris, Et plenum poto sanguine guttur habent. Est illis strigilis nomen; sed nominis hujus Causa, quòd horrendâ stridere nocte solent._