M. De le Chambre insists upon it that the inclinations of people may be

known from consulting the lines on the hands; there being a very near correspondence between the parts of the hand and the internal parts of the body, the heart, liver, &c. “whereon the passions and inclinations much depend.” He adds, however, that the rules and precepts of Chiromancy are not sufficiently warranted; the experiments on which they stand not being well verified. He concludes by observing, that there should be a new set of observations, made with justness and exactitude, in order to give to Chiromancy that form and solidity which an art of science demands. DACTYLIOMANCY. This is a sort of divination performed by means of a ring. It was done as follows, viz. by holding a ring, suspended by a fine thread, over a round table, on the edge of which were made a number of marks with the 24 letters of the alphabet. The ring in shaking or vibrating over the table, stopped over certain of the letters, which, being joined together, composed the required answer. But this operation was preceded and accompanied by several superstitious ceremonies; for, in the first place, the ring was to be consecrated with a great deal of mystery; the person holding it was to be clad in linen garments, to the very shoes; his head was to be shaven all round, and he was to hold vervein in his hand. And before he proceeded on any thing the gods were first to be appeased by a formulary of prayers, &c. The whole process of this mysterious rite is given in the 29th book of Ammianus Marcellinus. EXTISPICIUM, (From _exta_ and _spicere_, to view, consider.) The name of the officer who shewed and examined the entrails of the victims was Extispex. This method of divination, or of drawing presages relative to futurity, was much practised throughout Greece, where there were two families, the _Jamidæ_ and _Clytidæ_, consecrated or set apart particularly for the exercise of it. The Hetrurians, in Italy, were the first _Extispices_, among whom likewise the art was in great repute. Lucan gives us a fine description of one of these operations in his first book. GASTROMANCY. This species of divination, practised among the ancients, was performed by means of words coming or appearing to come out of the belly. There is another kind of divination called by the same name, which is performed by means of glasses, or other round transparent vessels, within which certain figures appear by magic art. Hence its name, in consequence of the figures appearing as if in the belly of the vessels. GEOMANCY, Was performed by means of a number of little points or dots, made at random on paper; and afterwards considering the various lines and figures, which those points present; thereby forming a pretended judgment of futurity, and deciding a proposed question. Polydore Virgil defines Geomancy a kind of divination performed by means of clefts or chinks made in the ground; and he takes the Persian magi to have been the inventors of it. _De invent. rer._ lib. 1, c. 23. ⁂ Geomancy is formed of the Greek γη _terra_, earth; and μαντεια, divination; it being the ancien custom to cast little pebbles on the ground, and thence to form their conjecture, instead of the points above-mentioned. HYDROMANCY, ὙΔΡΟΜΑΤΕΙΑ, The art of divining or foretelling future events by means of water; and is one of the four general kinds of divination: the other three, as regarding the other elements, _viz._ fire and earth, are denominated Pyromancy, Aeromancy, and Geomancy already mentioned. The Persians are said by Varro to have been the first inventors of Hydromancy; observing also that Numa Pompilius, and Pythagoras, made use of it. There are various Hydromantic machines and vessels, which are of a singularly curious nature. NECROMANCY, Is the art of communicating with devils, and doing surprising things by means of their aid; particularly that of calling up the dead and extorting answers from them. (See MAGIC.) ONEIROCRITICA, Is the art of interpreting dreams; or a method of foretelling future events by means of dreams. From several passages of Scripture, it appears that, under the Jewish dispensation, there was such a thing as foretelling future events by dreams; but there was a particular gift or revelation required for that purpose. Hence it would appear that dreams are actually significative of something to come; and all that is wanting among us is, the _Oneirocritica_, or the art of knowing what: still it is the general opinion of the present day that dreams are mere chimera, induced by various causes, have no affinity with the realization of future events; but having, at the same time, indeed, some relation to what has already transpired. With respect to Joseph’s dream, “it was possible,” says an old author, “for God, who knew all things, to discover to him what was in the womb of fate; and to introduce that, he might avail himself of a dream; not but that he might as well have foretold it from any other accident or circumstance whatever; unless God, to give the business more importance, should purposely communicate such a dream to Pharoah, in order to fall in with the popular notion of dreams and divination, which at that time was so prevalent among the Egyptians.” The name given to the interpreters of dreams, or those who judge of events from the circumstances of dreams, was _Oneirocritics_. There is not much confidence to be placed in those Greek books called Oneirocritics; they are replete with superstition of the times. Rigault has given us a collection of the Greek and Latin works of this kind; one of which is attributed to _Astrampsichus_; another to Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople; to which are added the treatises of Artimedorus and Achmet. But the books themselves are little else than reveries or waking dreams, to explain and account for sleeping ones. The secret of _Oneirocritism_, according to all these authors, consists in the relations supposed to exist between the dream and the thing signified; but they are far from keeping to the relations of agreement and similitudes; and frequently they have recourse to others of dissimilitude and contrariety. ONOMANCY, or ONOMAMANCY[35], Is the art of divining the good or bad fortune which will befall a man from the letters of his name. This mode of divination was a very popular and reputable practice among the ancients. The Pythagoreans taught that the minds, actions, and successes of mankind, were according to their fate, genius, and name; and Plato himself inclines somewhat to the same opinion.—Ausonius to Probus expresses it in the following manner:— Qualem creavit moribus, Jussit vocari NOMINE Mundi supremus arbiter. In this manner he sports with tippling Meroe, as if her name told she would drink pure wine without water; or as he calls it, _merum mereim_. Thus Hippolytus was observed to be torn to pieces by his own coach horses, as his name imported; and thus Agamemnon signified that he should linger long before Troy; Priam, that he should be redeemed out of bondage in his childhood. To this also may be referred that of Claudius Rutilius:— Nominibus certis credam decurrere mores? Moribus aut Potius nomina certa dari? It is a frequent and no less just observation in history, that the greatest Empires and States have been founded and destroyed by men of the same name. Thus, for instance, Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, began the Persian monarchy; and Cyrus, the son of Darius, ruined it; Darius, son of Hystaspes, restored it; and, again, Darius, son of Asamis, utterly overthrew it. Phillip, son of Amyntas, exceedingly enlarged the kingdom of Macedonia; and Phillip, son of Antigonus, wholly lost it. Augustus was the first Emperor of Rome; Augustulus the last. Constantine first settled the empire of Constantinople, and Constantine lost it wholly to the Turks. There is a similar observation that some names are constantly unfortunate to princes: _e. g._ Caius, among the Romans; John, in France, England and Scotland; and Henry, in France. One of the principal rules of Onomancy, among the Pythagoreans, was, that an even number of vowels in a name signified an imperfection in the left side of a man; and an odd number in the right.—Another rule, about as good as this, was, that those persons were the most happy, in whose names the numeral letters, added together, made the greatest sum; for which reason, say they, it was, that Achilles vanquished Hector; the numeral letters, in the former name, amounting to a greater number than the latter. And doubtless it was from a like principle that the young Romans toasted their mistresses at their meetings as often as their names contained letters. “Nævia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur!” Rhodingius describes a singular kind of Onomantia.—Theodotus, King of the Goths, being curious to learn the success of his wars against the Romans, an Onomantical Jew ordered him to shut up a number of swine in little stys, and to give some of them Roman, and others Gothic names, with different marks to distinguish them, and there to keep them till a certain day; which day having come, upon inspecting the stys they found those dead to whom the Gothic names had been given, and those alive to whom the Roman names were assigned.—Upon which the Jew foretold the defeat of the Goths. ONYCOMANCY, or ONYMANCY. This kind of divination is performed by means of the finger nails. The ancient practice was, to rub the nails of a youth with oil and soot, or wax, and to hold up the nails, thus prepared, against the sun; upon which there were supposed to appear figures or characters, which shewed the thing required. Hence also modern Chiromancers call that branch of their art which relates to the inspection of nails, ONYCOMANCY. ORNITHOMANCY, Is a kind of divination, or method of arriving at the knowledge of futurity, by means of birds; it was among the Greeks what Augury was among the Romans. PYROMANCY, A species of divination performed by means of fire. The ancients imagined they could foretel futurity by inspecting fire and flame; for this purpose they considered its direction, or which way it turned. Sometimes they added other matters to the fire, _e. g._ a vessel full of urine, with its neck bound round with wool; and narrowly watched the side in which it would burst, and thence took their prognostic. Sometimes they threw pitch in it, and if it took fire instantly, they considered it a favourable omen. PYSCOMANCY, or SCIOMANCY, An art among the ancients of raising or calling up the manes or souls of deceased persons, to give intelligence of things to come. The witch who conjured up the soul of Samuel, to foretel Saul the event of the battle he was about to give, did so by Sciomancy. RHABDOMANCY, Was an ancient method of divination, performed by means of rods or staves. St. Jerome mentions this kind of divination in his Commentary on Hosea, chap. vi. 12.; where the prophet says, in the name of God: _My people ask counsel at their stocks; and their staff declareth unto them_: which passage that father understands of the Grecian _Rhabdomancy_. The same is met with again in Ezekiel, xxi. 21, 22. where the prophet says: _For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way_, at the head of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright; or, as St. Jerome renders it, _he mixed his arrows; he consulted with images; he looked in the liver_. If it be the same kind of divination that is alluded to in these two passages, _Rhabdomancy_ must be the same kind of superstition with Belomancy. These two, in fact, are generally confounded. The Septuagint themselves translate ‏חצים‎ of Ezekiel, by ῥαβδος, a rod; though in strictness it signifies an arrow. So much however is certain, that the instruments of divination mentioned by Hosea are different from those of Ezekiel. In the former it is ‏עצו‎ _etso_, ‏מקלו‎ _maklo_, his wood, his staff: in the latter ‏חצים‎ _hhitism_, arrows. Though it is possible they might use rods or arrows indifferently; or the military men might use arrows and the rest rods. By the laws of the Frisones, it appears that the ancient inhabitants of Germany practised Rhabdomancy. The Scythians were likewise acquainted with the use of it: and Herodotus observes, _lib._ vi. that the women among the Alani sought and gathered together fine straight wands or rods, and used them for the same superstitious purposes. Among the various other kinds of divination, not here mentioned, may be enumerated: _Chiromancy_, performed with keys; _Alphitomancy_ or _Aleuromancy_, by flour; _Keraunoscopia_, by the consideration of thunder; _Alectromancy_, by cocks; _Lithomancy_, by stones; _Eychnomancy_, by lamps; _Ooscopy_, by eggs; _Lecanomancy_, by a basin of water; _Palpitatim_, _Salisatio_, παλμος, by the pulsation or motion of some member, &c. &c. &c. All these kinds of divination have been condemned by the fathers of the Church, and Councils, as supposing some compact with the devil. Fludd has written several treatises on divination, and its different species; and Cicero has two books of the divination of the ancients, in which he confutes the whole system. Cardan also, in his 4th Book de Sapientia, describes every species of them. ORACLE. The word oracle admits, under this head, of two significations: first, it is intended to express an answer, usually couched in very dark and ambiguous terms, supposed to be given by demons of old, either by the mouths of their idols, or by those of their priests, to those who consulted them on things to come. The PYTHIAN[36] was always in a rage when she gave oracles. Ablancourt observes that the study or research of the meaning of _Oracles_ was but a fruitless thing; and they were never understood until they were accomplished. It is related by Historians, that Crœsus was tricked by the ambiguity and equivocation of the oracle. Κροισος Άλυν διαβας μεγαλην αρχην καταλνσει. rendered thus in Latin:— _Crœsus Halym superans magnam pervertet opum vim._ Oracle is also used for the Demon who gave the answer, and the place where it was given. (Vide DEMON.) The principal oracles of antiquity are that of Abæ, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Amphiarus; that of the Branchidæ, at Didymus; that of the Camps, at Lacedemon; that of Dodona; that of Jupiter Ammon; that of Nabarca, in the Country of the Anariaci, near the Caspian sea; that of Trophonius, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Chrysopolis; that of Claros, in Ionia; that of Mallos; that of Patarea; that of Pella, in Macedonia; that of Phaselides, in Cilicia; that of Sinope, in Paphlagonia; that of Orpheus’s head, mentioned by Philostratus in his life of Appolonius, &c. But, of all others, the oracle of _Apollo Pythius_, at Delphi, was the most celebrated; it was, in short, consulted always as a _dernier ressort_, in cases of emergency, by most of the princes of those ages.— Mr. Bayle observes, that at first, it gave its answers in verse; and that at length it fell to prose, in consequence of the people beginning to laugh at the poorness of its versification. Among the more learned, it is a pretty general opinion that all the oracles were mere cheats and impostures; calculated either to serve the avaricious ends of the heathen priests, or the political views of the princes. Bayle positively asserts, they were mere human artifices, in which the devil had no hand. In this opinion he is strongly supported by Van Dale, a Dutch physician, and M. Fontenelle, who have expressly written on the subject. There are two points at issue on the subject of _oracles_; viz. whether they were human or diabolical machines; and whether or not they ceased upon the publication and preaching of the Gospel? Plutarch wrote a treatise on the ceasing of some _oracles_: and Van Dale has a volume to prove that they did not cease at the coming of Christ; but that many of them had ceased long before the coming of that time, and that others held out till the fall of Paganism, under the Empire of Theodosius the Great, and when it was dissipated, these institutions could no longer resist. Van Dale was answered by a German, one Mœbius, professor of Theology, at Leipsic, in 1685. Fontenelle espoused Van Dale’s system, and improved upon it in his history of oracles; wherein he exposed the weakness of the argument used by many writers in behalf of Christianity, drawn from the ceasing of _oracles_. Balthus, a learned Jesuit, answered both Van Dale and Fontenelle. He labours to prove, that there were real _oracles_, and such as can never be attributed to any artifices of the Priests or Priestesses; and that several of these became silent in the first ages of the Church, either by the coming of Jesus Christ, or by the prayers of the Saints. This doctrine is confirmed by a letter from Father Bouchet, missionary to Father Balthus; wherein it is declared, that what Father Balthus declares of the ancient oracles, is experimented every day in the Indies. It appears, according to Bouchet, that the devil still delivers oracles in the Indies; and that, not by idols, which would be liable to imposture, but by the mouths of the priests, and sometimes of the bye-standers; it is added that these oracles, too, cease, and the devil becomes mute in proportion as the Gospel is preached among them. It was Eusebius who first endeavoured to persuade the christians that the coming of Jesus Christ had struck the oracles dumb; though it appears from the laws of Theodosius, Gratian, and Valentinian, that the oracles were still consulted as far back as the year 358. Cicero says the oracles became dumb, in proportion as people, growing less credulous, began to suspect them for cheats. Two reasons are alleged by Plutarch for the ceasing of oracles: the one was Apollo’s chagrin, who, it seems, “took it in dudgeon,” to be interrogated about so many trifles. The other was, that in proportion as the genii, or demons, who had the management of the oracles, died and became extinct, the oracles must necessarily cease. He adds a third and more natural cause for the ceasing of _oracles_, viz. the forlorn state of Greece, ruined and desolated by wars. For, in consequence of this calamity, the smallness of the gains suffered the priests to sink into a poverty and contempt too bare to cover the fraud. Most of the fathers of the church imagined it to be the devil that gave _oracles_, and considered it as a pleasure he took to give dubious and equivocal answers, in order to have a handle to laugh at them. Vossius allows that it was the devil who spoke in oracles; but thinks that the obscurity of his answers was owing to his ignorance as to the precise circumstances of events. That artful and studied obscurity, wherein, says he, answers were couched, shew the embarrassment the devil was under; as those double meanings they usually bore provided for the accomplishment. When the thing foretold did not happen accordingly, the _oracle_, forsooth, was always misunderstood. Eusebius has preserved some fragments of a Philosopher, called Oenomaus, who, out of resentment for having been so often fooled by the oracles, wrote an ample confutation of all their impertinences, in the following strain: “When we come to consult thee,” says he to Apollo, “if thou seest what is in the womb of futurity, why dost thou use expressions that will not be understood? if thou dost, thou takest pleasure in abusing us: if thou dost not, be informed of us, and learn to speak more clearly. I tell thee, that if thou intendest an equivoque, the Greek word whereby thou affirmedst that Crœsus should overthrow a great Empire, was ill-chosen; and that it could signify nothing but Crœsus’ conquering Cyrus. If things must necessarily come to pass, why dost thou amuse us with thy ambiguities? What dost thou, wretch as thou art, at Delphi; employed in muttering idle prophesies!” But Oenamaus is still more out of humour with the oracle for the answer which Apollo gave the Athenians, when Xerxes was about to attack Greece with all the strength of Asia. The Pythian declared, that Minerva, the protectress of Athens, had endeavoured in vain to appease the wrath of Jupiter; yet that Jupiter, in complaisance to his daughter, was willing the Athenians should save themselves within wooden walls; and that Salamis should behold the loss of a great many children, dead to their mothers, either when Ceres was spread abroad, or gathered together. At this Oenamaus loses all patience with the Delphian god: “This contest,” says he, “between father and daughter, is very becoming the deities! It is excellent, that there should be contrary inclinations and interests in heaven! Poor wizard, thou art ignorant who the children are that shall see Salamis perish; whether Greeks or Persians. It is certain they must be either one or the other; but thou needest not have told so openly that thou knewest not which. Thou concealest the time of the battle under these fine poetical expressions, _either when Ceres is spread abroad, or gathered together_: and thou wouldst cajole us with such pompous language! who knows not, that if there be a seafight, it must either be in seed-time or harvest? It is certain it cannot be in winter. Let things go how they will, thou wilt secure thyself by this Jupiter, whom Minerva is endeavouring to appease. If the Greeks lose the battle, Jupiter proved inexorable to the last; if they gain it, why then Minerva at length prevailed.” OURAN, OR URAN, SOANGUS, The name of an imaginary set of magicians in the island Gromboccanore, in the East Indies. The word implies _men-devils_; these people, it seems, having the art of rendering themselves invisible, and passing where they please, and, by these means, doing infinite mischief; for which reason the people hate and fear them mortally, and always kill them on the spot when they can take them. In the Portuguese history, printed 1581, folio, there is mention of a present made by the king of the island to a Portuguese officer, named Brittio, _ourans_, with whom, it is pretended, he made incursions on the people of Tidore, killed great numbers, &c. To try whether in effect they had the faculty ascribed to them, one of them was tied by the neck with a rope, without any possibility of disengaging himself by natural means; yet in the morning it was found he had slipped his collar. But that the king of Tidore might not complain that Brittio made war on him with devils, it is said he dismissed them at length, in their own island. DREAMS, &c. The art of foretelling future events by dreams, is called _Brizomancy._ Macrobius mentions five sorts of dreams, viz. 1st, vision; 2d, a discovery of something between sleep and waking; 3d, a suggestion cast into our fancy, called by Cicero, _Vesum_; 4th, an ordinary dream; and 5th, a divine apparition or revelation in our sleep; such as were the dreams of the prophets, and of Joseph, as also of the magi of the East. _Origin of Interpreting Dreams._ The fictitious art of interpreting dreams, had its origin among the Egyptians and Chaldeans; countries fertile in superstitions of all kinds. It was propagated from them to the Romans, who judging some dreams worthy of observation, appointed persons on purpose to interpret them. The believers in dreams as prognostics of future events, bring forward in confirmation of this opinion, a great variety of dreams, which have been the forerunners of very singular events:—among these are that of Calphurnia, the wife of Julius Cæsar, dreaming the night before his death, that she saw him stabbed in the capitol: that of Artorius, Augustus’s physician, dreaming before the battle of Philippi, that his master’s camp was pillaged; that of the Emperor Vespasian dreaming an old woman told him, that his good fortune would begin when Nero should have a tooth drawn, which happened accordingly. Cæsar dreaming that he was committing incest with his mother, was crowned Emperor of Rome; and Hippias the Athenian Tyrant, dreaming the same, died shortly after, and was interred in his mother earth. Mauritius the Emperor, who was slain by Phocas, dreamed a short time previous to this event, that an image of Christ that was fixed over the brazen gate of his palace, called him and reproached him with his sins, and at length demanded of him whether he would receive the punishment due to them in this world or the next; and Mauritius answering in this, the image commanded that he should be given, with his wife and children, into the hands of Phocas. Whereupon Mauritius, awakening in great fear, asked Phillipus, his son-in-law, whether he knew any soldier in the army called Phocas, he answered that there was a commissary so called; and Phocas became his successor, having killed his wife and five children. Arlet, during her pregnancy by William the Conqueror, dreamed that a light shone from her womb, that illumined all England. Maca, Virgil’s mother, dreamed that she was delivered of a laurel branch. The ridiculous infatuation of dreams is still so prominent, even among persons whose education should inform them better, and particularly among the fair sex, that a conversation seldom passes among them, that the subject of some foolish inconsistent dream or other, does not form a leading feature of their gossip. “I dreamed last night,” says one, “that one of my teeth dropped out.”—“That’s a sign,” replies another, “that you will lose a friend or some of your relations.”—“I’m afraid I shall,” returns the dreamer, “for my cousin (brother, or some other person connected with the family or its interests,) is very ill,” &c. _Opinions on the cause of dreams._ Avicen makes the cause of dreams to be an ultimate intelligence moving the moon in the midst of that light with which the fancies of men are illuminated while they sleep. Aristotle refers the cause of them to common sense, but placed in the fancy. Averroes places it in the imagination. Democritus ascribes it to little images, or representations, separated from the things themselves. Plato, among the specific and concrete notions of the soul. Albertus to the superior influences which continually flow from the sky, through many specific mediums. And some physicians attribute the cause of them to vapours and humours, and the affections and cares of persons predominant when awake; for, say they, by reason of the abundance of vapours, which are exhaled in consequence of immoderate feeding, the brain is so stuffed by it, that monsters and strange chimera are formed, of which the most inordinate eaters and drinkers furnish us with sufficient instances. Some dreams, they assert, are governed partly by the temperature of the body, and partly by the humour which mostly abounds in it; to which may be added, the apprehensions which have preceded the day before; which are often remarked in dogs, and other animals, which bark and make a noise in their sleep. Dreams, they observe, proceeding from the humours and temperature of the body, we see the choleric dreams of fire, combats, yellow colours, &c.; the phlegmatic, of water, baths, of sailing on the sea, &c.; the melancholics, of thick fumes, deserts, fantasies, hideous faces, &c.; the sanguines, of merry feasts, dances, &c. They that have the hinder part of their brain clogged with viscous humours, called by physicians ephialtes incubus, or, as it is termed, night-mare, imagine, in dreaming, that they are suffocated. And those who have the orifice of their stomach loaded with malignant humours, are affrighted with strange visions, by reason of those venemous vapours that mount to the brain and distemper it. Cicero tells a story of two Arcadians, who, travelling together, came to Megara, a city of Greece, between Athens and Corinth, where one of them lodged in a friend’s house, and the other at an inn. After supper the person who lodged at the private house went to bed, and falling asleep, dreamed that his friend at the inn appeared to him, and begged his assistance, because the innkeeper was going to kill him. The man immediately got out of bed much frightened at the dream but recovering himself and falling asleep again, his friend appeared to him a second time, and desired, that as he would not assist him in time, he would take care at least not to let his death go unpunished; that the innkeeper having murdered him, had thrown his body into a cart and covered it with dung; he therefore begged that he would be at the city gate in the morning, before the cart was out. Struck with this new dream, he went early to the gate, saw the cart, and asked the driver what was in it; the driver immediately fled, the dead body was taken out of the cart, and the innkeeper apprehended and executed. FATE. Fate, in a general sense, denotes an inevitable necessity, depending on some superior cause. It is a term much used among the ancient philosophers. It is formed _a fando_, from speaking; and primarily implies the same with _effatum_, _i. e._ a word or decree pronounced by God; or a fixed sentence, whereby the deity has prescribed the order of things, and allotted every person what shall befal him. The Greeks called θμαρμενη, _quasi_, θρμος, _nexus_, a change, or necessary series of things, indissolubly linked together; and the moderns call it PROVIDENCE. But independent of this sense of the word, in which it is used sometimes to denote the causes in nature, and sometimes the divine appointment, the word Fate has a farther meaning, being used to express some kind of necessity or other, or eternal designation of things, whereby all agents, necessary as well as voluntary, are swayed and directed to their ends. Some authors have divided Fate into Astrological and Stoical. ASTROLOGICAL FATE, denotes a necessity of things and events, arising, as is supposed, from the influence and positions of the heavenly bodies, which give law to the elements and mixed bodies, as well as to the wills of men. STOICAL FATE, or FATALITY, or FATALISM, is defined by Cicero, an order or series of causes, in which cause is linked to cause, each producing others; and in this manner all things flow from the one prime cause. Chrysippus defines it a natural invariable succession of all things, _ab eterno_, each involving the other. To this fate they subject the very gods themselves. Thus the poet observes, that the “parent of all things made laws at the beginning, by which he not only binds other things, but himself.” Seneca also remarks, _Eadem necessitas et deos alligat. Irrevocabilis divina pariter et humana cursit vehit. Ipse ille omnium conditor et rector scripsit quidam fata, sed sequitur; semel scripsit, semper paret._ This eternal series of causes, the poets call μοιραι, and _parcæ_, or destinies. By some later authors Fate is divided into _Physical_ and _divine_. The first, or Physical fate, is an order and series of physical causes, appropriated to their effects. This series is necessary, and the necessity is natural. The principal or foundation of this Fate is nature, or the power and manner of acting which God originally gave to the several bodies, elements, &c. By this Fate it is that fire warms; bodies communicate motion to each other; the rising and falling of the tides, &c. And the effects of this Fate are all the events and phenomena in the universe, except such as arise from the human. The second, or divine Fate, is what is more commonly called Providence. Plato, in his Phædo, includes both these in one definition; as intimating, that they were one and the same thing, actively and passively considered. Thus, Fatum _Est ratio quædam divina, lexque naturæ comes, quæ transiri nequeat, quippe a causa pendens, quæ superior sit quibusvis impedimentis_. Though that of Bœtius seems the clearer of the two:—_Fatum_, says he, _est inhærens rebus molilibus despositio per quam providentia suis quæque nectet ordinibus_. PHYSIOGNOMY[37], ΦΥΣΙΟΓΝΩΜΙΑ. There seems to be something in Physiognomy, and it may perhaps bear a much purer philosophy than these authors (see Note,) were acquainted with. This, at least, we dare say, that of all the fanciful arts of the ancients, fallen into disuse by the moderns, there is none has so much foundation in nature as this. There is an apparent correspondence, or analogy between the countenance and the mind; the features and lineaments of the one are directed by the motions and affections of the other: there is even a peculiar arrangement in the members of the face, and a peculiar disposition of the countenance, to each particular affection; and perhaps to each particular idea of the mind. In fact, the language of the face (_physiognomy_,) is as copious, nay, perhaps, as distinct and intelligible, as that of the tongue, (_speech_.) Thanks to bounteous nature, she has not confined us to one only method of conversing with each other, and of learning each other’s thoughts; we have several:—We do not wholly depend on the tongue, which may happen to be bound; and the ear, which may be deaf:—but in those cases we have another resource, _viz._ the Countenance and the Eye, which afford us this further advantage, that by comparing the reports of the tongue, (a member exceedingly liable to deceive,) with those of the face, the prevarications of the former may be detected. The foundation of Physiognomy is the different objects that present themselves to the senses, nay, the different ideas that arise on the mind, do make some impression on the spirits; and each an impression correspondent or adequate to its cause,—each, therefore, makes a different impression. If it be asked how such an impression could be effected, it is easy to answer; in short, it is a consequence of the economy of the Creator, who has fixed such a relation between the several parts of the creation, to the end that we may be apprized of the approach or recess of things hurtful or useful to us. Should this not be philosophical enough for our purpose, take the manner of the Cartesian language, thus: _the animal spirits moved in the organ by an object, continue their motion to the brain; from whence that motion is propagated to this or that particular part of the body, as is most suitable to the design of nature; having first made a proper alteration in the face by means of its nerves, especially the_ PATHETICI _and_ MOTORES OCCULORUM. See Dr. Gurther’s work, anno 1604. The face here does the office of a dial-plate, and the wheels and springs, inside the machine, putting its muscles in motion, shew what is next to be expected from the striking part. Not that the motion of the spirits is continued all the way by the impression of the object, as the impression may terminate in the substance of the brain, the common fund of the spirits; the rest Dr. Gurther imagines, may be effected much after the same manner as air is conveyed into the pipes of an organ, which being uncovered, the air rushes in; and when the keys are let go, is stopped again. Now, if by repeated acts, or the frequent entertaining of a private passion or vice, which natural temperament has hurried, or custom dragged on to, the face is often put in that posture which attends such acts; the animal spirits will make such passages through the nerves, (in which the essence of a habit consists,) that the face is sometimes unalterably set in that posture, (as the Indian religious are by a long continued sitting in strange postures in their pagods,) or, at least, it falls, insensibly and mechanically, into that posture, unless some present object distort it therefrom, or some dissimulation hide it. This reason is confirmed by observation: thus we see great drinkers with eyes generally set towards the nose; the abducent muscles (by some called bibatorii, or bibatory muscles,) being often employed to put them in that posture, in order to view their beloved liquor in the glass, at the time of drinking. Thus, also, lascivious persons are remarkable for the _oculorum mobilis petulantia_, as Petronius calls it. Hence also we may account for the Quaker’s expecting face, waiting the spirit to move him; the melancholy face of most sectaries; the studious face of men of great application of mind; revengeful and bloody men, like executioners in the act; and though silence in a sort may awhile pass for wisdom, yet sooner or later, St. Martin peeps through the disguise to undo all. “A _changeable face_,” continues Dr. Gurther, “I have observed to show a _changeable mind_, but I would by no means have what has been said be understood as without exception; for I doubt not but sometimes there are found men with great and virtuous souls under very unpromising outsides.” “Were our observations a little more strict and delicate, we might, doubtless, not only distinguish habits and tempers, but also professions. In effect, does there need much penetration to distinguish the fierce looks of the veteran soldier, the contentious look of the practised pleader, the solemn look of the minister of state, or many others of the like kind?” A very remarkable physiological anecdote has been given by De La Place, in his “_Pièces Interrestantes et peu connues_.” Vol. iv. p. 8. He was assured by a friend that he had seen a voluminous and secret correspondence which had been carried on between Louis XIV. and his favourite physician De la Chambre on this science: the faith of the monarch seems to have been great, and the purpose to which this correspondence tended was extraordinary indeed, and perhaps scarcely credible. Who will believe that Louis XIV. was so convinced of that talent, which De la Chambre attributed to himself, of deciding merely by the physiognomy of persons, not only on the real bent of their character, but to what employment they were adapted, that the king entered into a _secret correspondence_ to obtain the critical notices of his _physiognomist_. That Louis XIV. should have pursued this system, undetected by his own courtiers, is also singular; but it appears by this correspondence, that this art positively swayed him in his choice of officers and favourites. On one of the backs of these letters De la Chambre had written, “If I die before his majesty, he will incur great risk of making many an unfortunate choice.” This collection of Physiological correspondence, if it does really exist, would form a curious publication. We, however, have heard nothing of it. De la Chambre was an enthusiastic physiognomist, as appears by his works: “The Characters of the Passions,” four volumes in quarto; “The art of Knowing Mankind;” and “the Knowledge of Animals.” Lavater quotes his “vote and interest” in behalf of his favourite science. It is no less curious, however, to add, that Phillip Earl of Pembroke, under James I., had formed a particular collection of portraits, with a view to physiognomonical studies. The great Prince of Condé was very expert in a sort of Physiognomy which shewed the peculiar habits, motions, and positions of familiar life, and mechanical employments. He would sometimes lay wagers with his friends, that he would guess, upon the Pont Neuf, what trade persons were of that passed by, from their walk and air. The celebrated Marshal Laudohn would have entered when young, into the service of the great Frederick, King of Prussia; but that monarch, with all his penetration, formed a very erroneous judgment of the young officer, (as he himself found in the sequel,) and pronounced that he would never do; in consequence of which Laudohn entered into the service of the Empress-Queen, Maria Theresa, and became one of the most formidable opponents of his Prussian Majesty. Marshal Turrene was much more accurate in his opinion of our illustrious John Duke of Marlborough, whose future greatness he predicted, when he was serving in the French army as Ensign Churchill, and known by the unmilitary name of the “handsome Englishman.” In the fine arts, moreover, we have seen no less accurate predictions of future eminence. As the scholars of Rubens were playing and jesting with each other, in the absence of their master, one of them was accidentally thrown against a piece on which Rubens had just been working, and a considerable part of it was entirely disfigured. Another of the pupils set himself immediately to repair it, and completed the design before his master returned. Rubens, on reviewing his work, observed a change, and a difference that surprised and embarrassed him. At last, suspecting that some one had been busy, he demanded an explanation; adding, that the execution was in so masterly a manner, that he would pardon the impertinence on account of its merit. Encouraged by this declaration, the young artist confessed, and explained the whole, pleading, that his officiousness was merely to screen a comrade from his master’s anger. Rubens answered, “if any one of my scholars shall excel me, it will be yourself.” This pupil was the great Vandyck. Lavater, who revived physiognomy, has, unquestionably, brought it to great perfection. But it may justly be doubted whether he is not deceived in thinking that it may be taught like other sciences, and whether there is not much in his system that is whimsical and unfounded. Every man, however, has by nature, something of the science, and nothing is more common than to suspect the man who never looks his neighbour in the face. There is a degree of cunning in such characters, which is always dangerous, but by no means new. “There is a wicked man that hangeth down his head sadly; but inwardly he is full of deceit. Casting down his countenance, and making as if he heard not. A man may be known by his look, and one that hath understanding, by his countenance, when thou meetest him.”—In several of Lavater’s aphorisms, something like the following occurs: “A man’s attire, and excessive laughter, and gait, shew what he is.” APPARITIONS. Partial darkness, or obscurity, are the most powerful means by which the sight is deceived: night is therefore the proper season for apparitions. Indeed the state of the mind, at that time, prepares it for the admission of these delusions of the imagination. The fear and caution which must be observed in the night; the opportunity it affords for ambuscades and assassinations; depriving us of society, and cutting off many pleasing trains of ideas, which objects in the light never fail to introduce, are all circumstances of terror: and perhaps, on the whole, so much of our happiness depends upon our senses, that the deprivation of any one may be attended with a proportionate degree of horror and uneasiness. The notions entertained by the ancients respecting the _soul_, may receive some illustrations from these principles. In dark, or twilight, the imagination frequently transforms an inanimate body into a human figure; on approaching the same appearance is not to be found: hence they sometimes fancied they saw their ancestors; but not finding the reality, distinguished these illusions by the name of _shades_. Many of these fabulous narrations might originate from _dreams_. There are times of slumber, when we are sensible of being asleep[38]. On this principle, Hobbes has so ingeniously accounted for the spectre which is said to have appeared to Brutus, that we cannot resist the temptation of inserting it in his own words. “We read,” says he, “of M. Brutus, (one that had his life given him by Julius Cæsar, and was also his favourite, and notwithstanding murdered him) that at Philippi, the night before he gave battle to Augustus Cæsar, he saw a fearful apparition, which is commonly related by historians as a vision; but considering the circumstances, one may easily judge it to have been but a short dream. For, sitting in his tent, pensive and troubled with the horror of his rash act, it was not hard for him, slumbering in the cold, to dream of that which most affrighted him; which fear, as by degrees it made him wake, so it must needs make the apparition by degrees to vanish: and having no assurance that he slept, he could have no cause to think it a dream, or any thing but a vision.”—The well-known story told by Clarendon, of the apparition of the Duke of Buckingham’s father, will admit of a similar solution. There was no man in the kingdom so much the subject of conversation as the Duke; and, from the corruptness of his character, he was very likely to fall a sacrifice to the enthusiasm of the times. Sir George Viliers is said to have appeared to the man at midnight—there is therefore the greatest probability that the man was asleep; and the dream affrighting him, made a strong impression, and was likely to be repeated. It must be confessed, that the popular belief of departed spirits occasionally holding a communication with the human race, is replete with matter of curious speculation. Some Christian divines, with every just reason, acknowledge no authentic source whence the impression of a future state could ever have been communicated to man, but from the Jewish prophets or from our Saviour himself. Yet it is certain, that a belief in our existence after death has, from time immemorial, prevailed in countries, to which the knowledge of the gospel could never have extended, as among certain tribes of America. Can then this notion have been intuitively suggested? Or is it an extravagant supposition, that the belief might often have arisen from those spectral illusions, to which men in every age, from the occasional influence of morbific causes, must have been subject? And what would have been the natural self-persuasion, if a savage saw before him the apparition of a departed friend or acquaintance, endowed with the semblance of life, with motion, and with signs of mental intelligence, perhaps even holding a converse with him? Assuredly, the conviction would scarcely fail to arise of an existence after death. The pages of history attest the fact that:— “If ancestry can be in aught believ’d, Descending spirits have convers’d with man, And told him secrets of the world unknown.” But if this opinion of a life hereafter, had ever among heathen nations their origin, it must necessarily be imbued with the grossest absurdities, incidental to so fallacious a source of intelligence. Yet still the mind has clung to such extravagancies with avidity; “for,” as Sir Thomas Brown has remarked, “it is the heaviest stone that melancholy can throw at a man, to tell him that he is at the end of his nature; or that there is no future state to come, unto which this seems progressively and otherwise made in vain.” It has remained therefore for the light of revelation alone, to impart to this belief the consistency and conformation of divine truth, and to connect it with a rational system of rewards and punishments. From the foregoing remarks, we need not be surprised that a conviction of the occasional appearance of ghosts or departed spirits, should, from the remotest antiquity, have been a popular creed, not confined to any distinct tribe or race of people. In Europe, it was the opinion of the Greeks and Romans, that, after the dissolution of the body, every man was possessed of three different kinds of ghosts, which were distinguished by the names of Manes, Anima, and Umbra. These were disposed of after the following manner: the Manes descended into the infernal regions, the Anima ascended to the skies, and the Umbra hovered about the tomb, as being unwilling to quit its connexion with the body. Dido, for instance, when about to die, threatens to haunt Æneas with her _umbra_; at the same time, she expects that the tidings of his punishment will rejoin her _manes_ below[39]. The opinions regarding ghosts which were entertained during the Christian era, but more particularly during the middle ages, are very multifarious; yet these, with the authorities annexed to them, have been most industriously collected by Reginald Scot. His researches are replete with amusement and instruction. “And, first,” says he, “you shall understand, that they hold, that all the soules in heaven may come downe and appeare to us when they list, and assume anie bodie saving their owne: otherwise (saie they) such soules should not be perfectlie happie. They saie that you may know the good soules from the bad very easilie. For a damned soule hath a very heavie and soure looke; but a saint’s soule hath a cheerful and merrie countenance: these also are white and shining, the other cole black. And these damned soules also may come up out of hell at their pleasure, although Abraham made Dives believe the contrarie. They affirme, that damned soules walke oftenest: next unto them, the soules of purgatorie; and most seldom the soules of saints. Also they saie, that in the old lawe soules did appeare seldom; and after doomsdaie they shall never be seene more: in the time of grace they shall be most frequent. The walking of these soules (saith Michael Andræas) is a moste excellent argument for the proofe of purgatorie; for (saith he) those soules have testified that which the popes have affirmed in that behalfe; to wit, that there is not onelie such a place of punishment, but that they are released from thence by masses, and such other satisfactorie works, whereby the goodness of the masse is also ratified and confirmed. “These heavenlie or purgatorie soules (saie they) appeare most commonlie to them that are borne upon Ember daies; because we are in best date at that time to praie for the one, and to keepe companie with the other. Also, they saie, that soules appeare oftenest by night; because men may then be at best leisure, and most quiet. Also they never appeare to the whole multitude, seldome to a few, and commonlie to one alone; for so one may tell a lie without controlment. Also, they are oftenest seene by them that are readie to die: as Thrasella saw Pope Fœlix; Ursine, Peter and Paule; Galla Romana, S. Peter; and as Musa the maide sawe our Ladie: which are the most certaine appearances, credited and allowed in the church of Rome; also, they may be seene of some, and of some other in that presence not seene at all; as Ursine saw Peter and Paule, and yet manie at that instant being present could not see anie such sight, but thought it a lie, as I do. Michael Andræas confesseth that papists see more visions than Protestants: he saith also, that a good soule can take none other shape than a man; manie a damned soule may and doth take the shape of a blackmore, or of a beaste, or of a serpent, or speciallie of an heretike.” Such is the accounts which Scot has given regarding the Popish opinion of departed spirits. In another part of his work, he triumphantly asks, “Where are the soules that swarmed in time past? Where are the spirits? Who heareth their noises? Who seeth their visions? Where are the soules that made such mone for trentals, whereby to be eased of their pains in purgatorie? Are they all gone to Italie, because masse are growne deere here in England?—The whole course may be perceived to be a false practice, and a counterfeit vision, or rather a lewd invention. For in heaven men’s soules remaine not in sorrow and care, neither studie they there how to compasse and get a worshipfull burial here in earth. If they did they would not have foreslowed so long. Now, therefore, let us not suffer ourselves to be abused anie longer, either with conjuring priests, or meloncholicall witches; but be thankfull to God that hath delivered us from such blindness and error[40].” This is the congratulation of a true Protestant at an early period of the reformation; and it is certain, that with the disbelief of that future state of purgatory, taught by the Romish church, the communication of the living with the dead became less frequent. Still, however, some belief of the kind prevailed, though less tinctured with superstition. An author, styling himself Theophilus Insulanus, who, half a century ago, wrote on the second-sight of Scotland, affixes the term _irreligious_ to those who should entertain a doubt on the reality of apparitions of departed souls. “Such ghostly visitants,” he gravely affirms, “are not employed on an errand of a frivolous concern to lead us into error, but are employed as so many heralds by the great Creator, for the more ample demonstration of his power, to proclaim tidings for our instruction; and, as we are prone to despond in religious matter, to confirm our faith of the existence of spirits, (the foundation of all religions,) and the dignity of human nature.” With due deference, however, to this anonymous writer, whom we should scarcely have noticed, if he had not echoed in this assertion an opinion which was long popular, we shall advert to the opposite sentiments expressed on the subject by a far more acute, though less serious author. The notion, for instance, of the solemn character of ghosts, and that they are never employed on frivolous errands, is but too successfully ridiculed by Grose[41]. “In most of the relations of ghosts,” says this pleasant writer, “they are supposed to be mere aërial beings without substance, and that they can pass through walls and other solid bodies at pleasure. The usual time at which ghosts make their appearance is midnight, and seldom before it is dark; though some audacious spirits have been said to appear even by daylight. Ghosts commonly appear in the same dress they usually wore when living: though they are sometimes clothed all in white; but that is chiefly the church-yard ghosts, who have no particular business, but seem to appear _pro bono publico_, or to scare drunken rustics from tumbling over their graves. I cannot learn that ghosts carry tapers in their hands, as they are sometimes depicted, though the room in which they appear, if without fire or candle, is frequently said to be as light as day. Dragging chains is not the fashion of English ghosts; chains and black vestments being chiefly the accoutrements of foreign spectres, seen in arbitrary governments: dead or alive, English spirits are free. If, during the time of an apparition, there is a lighted candle in the room, it will burn extremely blue: this is so universally acknowledged, that many eminent philosophers have busied themselves in accounting for it, without ever doubting the truth of the fact. Dogs too have the faculty of seeing spirits[42].” There are several other minute particulars respecting ghosts given by this author, for the insertion of which we have not room; yet it would be inexcusable to omit noticing the account which he has subjoined, of the awfully momentous errands upon which spirits are sent. “It is somewhat remarkable,” he adds, “that ghosts do not go about their business like the persons of this world. In cases of murder, a ghost, instead of going to the next justice of peace, and laying its information, or to the nearest relation of the person murdered, appears to some poor labourer who knows none of the parties; draws the curtain of some decrepit nurse, or alms-woman; or hovers about the place where the body is deposited. The same circuitous road is pursued with respect to redressing injured orphans or widows; when it seems as if the most certain way would be to go to the person guilty of the injustice, and haunt him continually till he be terrified into a restitution. Nor are the pointing out lost writings generally managed in a more summary way; the ghost commonly applying to a third person, ignorant of the whole affair, and a stranger to all concerned. But it is presumptuous to scrutinize far into these matters: ghosts have undoubtedly forms and customs peculiar to themselves.” The view which Grose has taken of the character of departed spirits is pretty correct, although I have certainly read of some spirits whose errands to the earth have been much more direct. One ghost, for instance, has terrified a man into the restitution of lands, which had been bequeathed to the poor of a village. A second spirit has adopted the same plan for recovering property of which a nephew had been wronged; but a third has haunted a house for no other purpose than to kick up a row in it—to knock about chairs, tables, and other furniture. Glanville relates a story, of the date of 1632, in which a man, upon the alleged information of a female spirit, who came by her death foully, led the officers of justice to a pit, where a mangled corpse was concealed, charged two individuals with her murder; and upon this fictitious story, the poor fellows were condemned and executed, although they solemnly persevered to the last in maintaining their innocence. It is but too evident, in this case, by whom the atrocious deed had been committed. Other apparitions of this kind may be considered as the illusions of well-known diseases. Thus there can be no difficulty in considering the following apparition, given on the authority of Aubery and Turner, as having had its origin in the Delirium Tremens of drunkenness. “Mr. Cassio Burroughs,” says the narrator of this very choice, yet, we believe, authentic story, “was one of the most beautiful men in England, and very valiant, but very proud and blood thirsty. There was in London a very beautiful Italian lady,” (whom he seduced.) “The gentlewoman died; and afterwards, in a tavern in London, he spake of it, (contrary to his sacred promise,) “and then going” (out of doors) the ghost of the gentlewoman did appear to him. He was afterwards troubled with the apparition of her, even sometimes in company when he was drinking. Before she did appear, he did find a kind of chilness upon his spirits. She did appear to him in the morning before he was killed in a duel.” Of the causes of many apparitions which have been recorded, it is not so easy as the foregoing narrative, to obtain a satisfactory explanation. Such is the case of the story related of Viscount Dundee, whose ghost about the time he fell at the battle of Killicranky, appeared to Lord Balcarras, then under confinement, upon the suspicion of Jacobitism, at the Castle of Edinburgh. The spectre drew aside the curtain of his friend’s bed, looked stedfastly at him, leaned for some time on the mantlepiece, and then walked out of the room. The Earl, not aware at the time that he was gazing on a phantom, called upon Dundee to stop. News soon arrived of the unfortunate hero’s fate. Now, regarding this, and other stories of the kind, however authentic they may be, the most interesting particulars are suppressed. Of the state of Lord Balcarras’s health at the time, it has not been deemed necessary that a syllable should transpire. No argument, therefore, either in support of, or in opposition to, the popular belief in apparitions, can be gathered from an anecdote so deficient in any notice of the most important circumstances upon which the developement of truth depends. With regard to the spectre of Dundee appearing just at the time he fell in battle, it must be considered, that agreeable to the well-known doctrine of chances, which mathematicians have so well investigated, the event might as well occur then as at any other time, while a far greater proportion of other apparitions, less fortunate in such a supposed confirmation of their supernatural origin, are quietly allowed to sink into oblivion. Thus, it is the office of superstition to carefully select all successful coincidences of this kind, and register them in her marvellous volumes, where for ages they have served to delude and mislead the world. To this story we shall add another, from Beaumont’s World of Spirits, for no other reason, than because it is told better than most ghost stories with which I am acquainted. It is dated in the year 1662, and it relates to an apparition seen by the daughter of Sir Charles Lee, immediately preceding her death. No reasonable doubt can be placed on the authenticity of the narrative, as it was drawn up by the Bishop of Gloucester, from the recital of the young lady’s father. “Sir Charles Lee, by his first lady, had only one daughter, of which she died in child-birth; and when she was dead, her sister, the Lady Everard, desired to have the education of the child, and she was by her very well educated, till she was marriageable, and a match was concluded for her with Sir William Perkins, but was then prevented in an extraordinary manner. Upon a Thursday night, she, thinking she saw a light in her chamber, after she was in bed, knocked for her maid, who presently came to her; and she asked, ‘Why she left a candle burning in her chamber?’ The maid said, ‘She left none, and there was none but what she brought with her at that time.’ Then she said it was the fire, but that, her maid told her, was quite out; and said she believed it was only a dream. Whereupon she said, it might be so, and composed herself again to sleep. But about two of the clock she was awakened again, and saw the apparition of a little woman between her curtain and her pillow, who told her she was her mother, that she was happy, and that by twelve of the clock that day she should be with her. Whereupon she knocked again for her maid, called for her clothes, and when she was dressed, went into her closet, and came not out again till nine, and then brought out with her a letter sealed by her father; brought it to her aunt, the Lady Everard, told her what had happened, and declared, that as soon as she was dead, it might be sent to him. The lady thought she was suddenly fallen mad, and thereupon sent presently away to Chelmsford for a physician and surgeon, who both came immediately; but the physician could discern no indication of what the lady imagined, or of any indisposition of her body: notwithstanding the lady would needs have her let blood, which was done accordingly. And when the young woman had patiently let them do what they would with her, she desired that the chaplain might be sent to read prayers; and when prayers were ended, she took her guitar and psalm-book, and sat down upon a chair without arms, and played and sung so melodiously and admirably, that her music-master, who was then there, admired at it. And near the stroke of twelve, she rose and sat herself down in a great chair with arms, and presently fetching a strong breathing or two, immediately expired, and was so suddenly cold, as was much wondered at by the physician and surgeon. She died at Waltham, in Essex, three miles from Chelmsford, and the letter was sent to Sir Charles, at his house in Warwickshire; but he was so afflicted with the death of his daughter, that he came not till she was buried, but when he came he caused her to be taken up, and to be buried with her mother, at Edmonton, as she desired in her letter.” This is one of the most interesting ghost-stories on record. Yet, when strictly examined, the manner in which a leading circumstance in the case is reported, affects but too much the supernatural air imparted to other of its incidents. For whatever might have been averred by a physician of the _olden time_, with regard to the young lady’s sound state of health during the period she saw her mother’s ghost, it may be asked—if any practitioner of the present day would have been proud of such an opinion, especially when death followed so promptly after the spectral impression. ——“There’s bloom upon her cheek; But now I see it is no living hue, But a strange hectic—like the unnatural red Which autumn plants upon the perish’d leaf.” Probably the languishing female herself might have unintentionally contributed to the more strict verification of the ghost’s prediction. It was an extraordinary exertion which her tender frame underwent, near the expected hour of dissolution, in order that she might retire from all her scenes of earthly enjoyment, with the dignity of a resigned christian. And what subject can be conceived more worthy the masterly skill of a painter, than to depict a young and lovely saint cheered with the bright prospect of futurity before her, and ere the quivering flame of life which for a moment was kindled up into a glow of holy ardour, had expired for ever, sweeping the strings of her guitar with her trembling fingers, and melodiously accompanying the notes with her voice, in a hymn of praise to her heavenly Maker? Entranced with such a sight, the philosopher himself would dismiss for the time his usual cold and cavelling scepticism, and giving way to the superstitious impressions of less deliberating bye-standers, partake with them in the most grateful of religious solaces, which the spectacle must have irresistibly inspired. Regarding the confirmation, which the ghost’s mission is, in the same narrative, supposed to have received from the completion of a foreboded death, all that can be said of it is, that the coincidence was a _fortunate_ one; for, without it, the story would, probably, never have met with a recorder, and we should have lost one of the sweetest anecdotes that private life has ever afforded. But, on the other hand, a majority of popular ghost-stories might be adduced, wherein apparitions have either visited our world, without any ostensible purpose and errand whatever, or, in the circumstances of their mission, have exhibited all the inconsistency of conduct so well exposed in the quotation which I have given from Grose, respecting departed spirits. “Seldom as it may happen,” says Nicolai, in the memoir which he read to the Society of Berlin, on the appearance of spectres occasioned by disease, “that persons believe they see human forms, yet examples of the case are not wanting. A respectable member of this academy, distinguished by his merit in the science of Botany, whose truth and credulity are unexceptionable, once saw in this very room in which we are now assembled, the phantom of the late president Maupertius.” But it appears that this ghost was seen by a philosopher, and, consequently, no attempt was made to connect it with superstitious speculations. The uncertainty, however, of ghostly predictions, is not unaptly illustrated in the table-talk of Johnson. “An acquaintance,” remarks Boswell, “on whose veracity I can depend, told me, that walking home one evening at Kilmarnock, he heard himself called from a wood, by the voice of a brother, who had gone to America; and the next packet brought an account of that brother’s death. Mackbean asserted that this inexplicable _calling_ was a thing very well known. Dr. Johnson said that one day at Oxford, as he was turning the key of his chamber, he heard his mother distinctly calling _Sam_. She was then at Litchfield; but _nothing ensued_.” This casual admission, which, in the course of conversation, transpired from a man, _himself_ strongly tainted with superstition, precludes any farther remarks on the alleged nature and errand of ghosts, which would now, indeed, be highly superfluous. “A lady once asked me,” says Mr. Coleridge, “if I believed in ghosts and apparitions? I answered with truth and simplicity, No, Madam! I have seen far too many myself[43].” DEUTEROSCOPIA, OR SECOND-SIGHT. The nearer we approach to times when superstition shall be universally exploded, the more we consign to oblivion the antiquated notions of former days, respecting every degree of supernatural agency or communication. It is not long ago, however, since the _second sight_, as it is called, peculiar to the Scotch Highlanders, was a subject of dispute, and although it be true, as some assert, ‘that all argument is against it,’ yet it is equally certain that we have many well attested facts for it. We think upon the whole that the question is placed in its true light, in the following communication from a gentleman in Scotland, who had opportunities to know the facts he relates, and who has evidently sense enough not to carry them farther than they will bear. What is called in this part of the island by the French word _presentiment_, appears to me to be a species of second sight, and it is by no means uncommon: why it is less attended to in the ‘busy haunts of men,’ than in the sequestered habitations of the Highlanders, is accounted for by the following detail, and we apprehend upon very just grounds. “Of all the subjects which philosophers have chosen for exercising their faculty of reasoning, there is not one more worthy of their attention, than the contemplation of the human mind. There they will find an ample field wherein they may range at large, and display their powers; but at the same time it must be observed, that here, unless the philosopher calls in religion to his aid, he will be lost in a labyrinth of fruitless conjectures, and here, in particular, he will be obliged to have a reference to a _great first cause_; as the mind of man (whatever may be asserted of material substances,) could never be formed by chance; and he will find its affections so infinitely various, that instead of endeavouring to investigate, he will be lost in admiration. “The faculty or affections of the mind, attributed to our neighbours of the Highlands of Scotland, of having a foreknowledge of future events, or, as it is commonly expressed, having the _second sight_, is perhaps one of the most singular. Many have been the arguments both for and against the real existence of this wonderful gift. I shall not be an advocate on either side, but shall presume to give you a fact or two, which I know to be well authenticated, and from which every one is at liberty to infer what they please. “The late Rev. D. M’Sween was minister of a parish in the high parts of Aberdeenshire, and was a native of Sky Island, where his mother continued to reside. On the 4th of May, 1738, Mr. M’Sween, with his brother, who often came to visit him from Sky, were walking in the fields. After some interval in their discourse, during which the minister seemed to be lost in thought, his brother asked him what was the matter with him; he made answer, he hardly could tell, but he was certain their mother was dead. His brother endeavoured to reason him out of this opinion, but in vain. And upon the brother’s return home, he found that his mother had really died on that very day on which he was walking with the minister. “In April, 1744, a man of the name of Forbes, walking over Culloden Muir, with two or three others, was suddenly, as it were, lost in thought, and when in some short time after he was interrupted by his companions, he very accurately described the battle, which was fought on that very spot two years afterwards, at which description his companions laughed heartily, as there was no expectation of the pretender’s coming to Britain at that time.” Many such instances might be produced, but I am afraid these are sufficient to stagger the credulity of most people. But to the incredulous, I shall only say, that I am very far from attributing’ the second sight to the Scotch Highlanders more than to ourselves. I am pretty certain there is no man whatever, who is not sometimes seized with a foreboding in his mind, or, as it may be termed, a kind of reflection which it is not in his power to prevent; and although his thoughts may not perhaps be employed on any particular exigency, yet he is apt to dread from that quarter, where he is more immediately concerned. This opinion is agreeable to all the heathen mythologists, particularly Homer and Virgil, where numerous instances might be produced, and these justified in the event; but there is an authority which I hold in more veneration than all the others put together, I mean that now much disused book called the Bible, where we meet with many examples, which may corroborate the existence of such an affection in the mind; and that too in persons who were not ranked among prophets. I shall instance one or two. The first is the 14th chapter of 1 Samuel, where it is next to impossible to imagine, that had not Jonathan been convinced of some foreboding in his mind, that he would certainly be successful, he and his armour-bearer, being only two in number, would never have encountered a whole garrison of the enemy. Another instance is in the 6th chapter of Esther, where the king of Persia, (who was no prophet,) was so much troubled in his mind, that he could not sleep, neither could he assign any reason for his being so, till the very reason was discovered from the means that were used to divert his melancholy, _viz._ the reading of the records, where he found he had forgot to do a thing which he was under an obligation to perform. Many of the most judicious modern authors also favour this opinion. Addison makes his Cato, sometime before his fatal exit, express himself thus, “What means this _heaviness_ that hangs upon me?” Shakspeare also makes Banquo exclaim, when he is about to set out on his journey, “A heavy summons hangs like lead upon me.” De Foe makes an instance of this kind the means of saving the life of Crusoe, at the same time admonishing his readers not to make light of these emotions of the mind, but to be upon their guard, and pray to God to assist them and bear them through, and direct them in what may happen to their prejudice in consequence thereof. “To what, then, are we to attribute these singular emotions? Shall we impute them to the agency of spiritual beings called guardian Angels, or more properly to the “Divinity that stirs within us, and points out an _hereafter_?” However it may be, it is our business to make the best of such hints, which I am confident every man has experienced, perhaps more frequently than he is aware of. “In great towns the hurry and dissipation that attend the opulent, and the little leisure that the poor have, from following the avocations which necessity drives them to, prevent them from taking any notice of similar instances to the foregoing, which may happen to themselves. But the case is quite different in the Highlands of Scotland, where they live solitary, and have little to do, or see done, and consequently, comparatively have but few ideas. When any thing of the above nature occurs, they have leisure to brood over it, and cannot get it banished from their minds, by which means it gains a deep and lasting impression, and often various circumstances may happen by which it may be interpreted, just like the ancient oracles by the priests of the heathen deities. This solitary situation of our neighbours is also productive of an opinion of a worse tendency—I mean the belief in spirits and apparitions, to which no people on earth are more addicted than the Scotch Highlanders: this opinion they suck in with their mother’s milk, and it increases with their years and stature. Not a glen or strath, but is haunted by its particular _goblins_ and _fairies_. And, indeed, the face of the country is in some places such, that it wears a very solemn appearance, even to a philosophic eye. The fall of cataracts of water down steep declivities, the whistling of the wind among heath, rocks and caverns, a loose fragment of a rock falling from its top, and in its course downward bringing a hundred more with it, so that it appears like the wreck of nature; the hooting of the night-owl, the chattering of the heath-cock, the pale light of the moon on the dreary prospect, with here and there a solitary tree on an eminence, which fear magnifies to an unusual size; all these considered, it is not to be wondered at, that even an enlightened mind should be struck with awe: what then must be the emotion of a person prejudiced from his infancy, when left alone in such a situation?” Until the last century the spirit Brownie, in the Highlands of Scotland, was another subject of second sight, as the following story will shew.— “Sir Normand Macleod, and some others, playing at tables, at a game called by the Irish Falmer-more, wherein there are three of a side and each of them threw dice by turns; there happened to be one difficult point in the disposing of the table-men; this obliged the gamester, before he changed his man, since upon the disposing of it the winning or losing of the game depended. At last the butler, who stood behind, advised the player where to place his man; with which he complied, and won the game. This being thought extraordinary, and Sir Normand hearing one whisper him in the ear, asked who advised him so skilfully? He answered, it was the butler; but this seemed more strange, for he could not play at tables. Upon this, Sir Normand asked him how long it was since he had learned to play? and the fellow owned that he never played in his life; but that he saw the spirit Brownie reaching his arm over the player’s head, and touching the part with his finger on the point where the table-man was to be placed[44].” The circumstance, however, deserving most notice, is the reference which the objects of second-sight are supposed to bear to the seer’s assumed gift of prophecy. It is said, in one of the numerous illustrations which have been given of this faculty, that “Sir Normand Mac Leod, who has his residence in the isle of _Bernera_, which lies between the Isle of North-Uist and Harries, went to the Isle of Skye about business, without appointing any time for his return: his servants, in his absence, being altogether in the large hall at night, one of them, who had been accustomed to see the second-sight, told the rest they must remove, for they would have abundance of company that night. One of his fellow-servants answered that there was very little appearance of that, and if he had any vision of company, it was not like to be accomplished this night; but the seer insisted upon it that it was. They continued to argue the improbability of it, because of the darkness of the night, and the danger of coming through the rocks that lie round the isle; but within an hour after, one, of Sir Normand’s men came to the house, bidding them to provide lights, &c. for his master had newly landed. The following illustrations of the second-sight are given by Dr. Ferriar, in his “Theory of Apparitions.” “A gentleman connected with my family, an officer in the army, and certainly addicted to no superstition, was quartered early in life, in the middle of the last century, near the castle of a gentleman in the north of Scotland, who was supposed to possess the second-sight. Strange rumours were afloat respecting the old chieftain. He had spoken to an apparition, which ran along the battlements of the house, and had never been cheerful afterwards. His prophetic visions surprise even in the region of credulity; and his retired habits favoured the popular opinions. My friend assured me, that one day, while he was reading a play to the ladies of the family, the chief, who had been walking across the room, stopped suddenly, and assumed the look of a seer. He rang the bell, and ordered a groom to saddle a horse; to proceed immediately to a seat in the neighbourhood, and enquire after the health of Lady ——. If the account was favourable, he then directed him to call at another castle, to ask after another lady whom he named. “The reader immediately closed his book, and declared he would not proceed till those abrupt orders were explained, as he was confident they were produced by the second-sight. The chief was very unwilling to explain himself; but at length the door had appeared to open, and that a little woman without a head, had entered the room; that the apparition indicated the death of some person of his acquaintance; and the only two persons who resembled the figure, were those ladies after whose health he had sent to enquire. “A few hours afterwards, the servant returned with an account that one of the ladies had died of an apoplectic fit, about the time when the vision appeared. “At another time the chief was confined to his bed by indisposition, and my friend was reading to him, in a stormy winter-night, while the fishing-boat belonging to the castle was at sea.” The old gentleman repeatedly expressed much anxiety respecting his people; and at last exclaimed, “my boat is lost!” The Colonel replied, “how do you know it, sir?” He was answered, “I see two of the boatmen bringing in the third drowned, all dripping wet, and laying him down close beside your chair. The chair was shifted with great precipitation; in the course of the night the fishermen returned with the corpse of one of the boatmen!” It is perhaps to be lamented, that such narratives as these should be quoted in Dr. Ferriar’s philosophic work on Apparitions. We have lately seen them advanced, on the doctor’s authority, as favouring the vulgar belief in Apparitions, and introduced in the same volume with the story of Mrs. Veal. WITCHES, WITCHCRAFT, WIZARDS, &c. “What are these, So withered and so wild in their attire, That look not like the inhabitants o’ the Earth, And yet are on’t? Live you? or are you aught That men may question? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * You should be women, And yet your beards forbid me to interpret That you are so.”—_Macbeth._ Witchcraft implies a kind of sorcery, more especially prevalent, and, as supposed, among old women, who, by entering into a social compact with the devil, if such an august personage there be as commonly represented, were enabled, in many instances, to alter the course of nature’s immutable laws;—to raise winds and storms,—to perform actions that require more than human strength,—to ride through the air upon broomsticks,—to transform themselves into various shapes,—to afflict and torment those who might have rendered themselves obnoxious to them, with acute pains and lingering diseases,—in fact, to do whatsoever they wished, through the agency of the devil, who was always supposed to be at their beck and call. All countries can boast of their witches, sorcerers, &c. they have been genial with every soil, and peculiar with every age. We have the earliest account of them in holy writ, which contains irrefutable proofs, that whether they existed or not, the same superstitious ideas prevailed, and continued to prevail until within the last century. The age of reason has now, however, penetrated the recesses of ignorance, and diffused the lights of the Gospel with good effect among the credulous and uninformed, to the great discomfit of witches and evil spirits. During the height of this kind of ignorance and superstition, many cruel laws were framed against witchcraft; in consequence of which, numbers of innocent persons, male and female[45], many of them no doubt friendless, and oppressed with age and penury, and disease, were condemned and burnt for powers they never possessed, for crimes they neither premeditated nor committed. Happily for humanity these terrific laws have long since been repealed. An enlightened age viewed with horror the fanaticism of Pagans, and gave proof of its emancipation from the dark and murderous trammels of ignorance and barbarity, by a recantation of creeds that had no other object in view than to stain the dignity of the creation by binding down the human mind to the most abject state of degeneracy and servility. The deceptions of jugglers, founded on optical illusions, electrical force, and magnetical attraction, have fortunately, in a great measure, gone a great way to remove the veil of pretended supernatural agency. The oracles of old have been detected as mere machinery; the popish miracles, slights of hand; every other supernatural farce has shared the same fate. We hear no more of witches, ghosts, &c. little children go to bed without alarm, and people traverse unfrequented paths at all hours and seasons, without dread of spells or incantations. In support, however, of the existence of witches, magicians, &c. many advocates have been found; and it is but justice to say, that all who have argued for, have used stronger and more forcible and appropriate reasoning than those who have argued against them. If the bible be the standard of our holy religion, and few there are who doubt it; it must also be the basis of our belief; for whatever is therein written is the WORD OF GOD, and not a parcel of _jeux d’esprits_, _conundrums_, or _quidproquos_, to puzzle and defeat those who consult that sacred volume for information or instruction. Nor do we believe all the jargon and orthodox canting of priests, who lay constructions on certain passages beyond the comprehension of men more enlightened than themselves, especially when they presume to tell us that such and such a word or sentence must be construed such and such a way, and not another. This party purpose will never effect any good for the cause of religion and truth. In the course of this article we shall quote the texts of Scripture where witches are mentioned in the same manner as we have done those that allude to apparitions, &c. without offering any very decided comment one way or the other, farther than we shall also in this case give precedence to the standard of the Christian religion, which forms a part of the law of the land; still maintaining our former opinion, that, doubtless, there have at one time been negotiations carried on between human beings and spirits; and for this assertion we refer to the Bible itself, for proof that there have been witches, sorcerers, magicians, who had the power of doing many wonderful things by means of demoniac agency, but what has become of, or at what precise time, this power or communication became extinct, we may not able to inform our readers, although we can venture to assure them that no such diabolical ascendancy prevails at the present period among the inhabitants of the earth. That this superstitious dread led to the persecution of many innocent beings, who were supposed to be guilty of witchcraft, there can be no question; our own statute books are loaded with penalties against sorcery; and, as already cited, at no very distant period, our courts of law have been disgraced by criminal trials of that nature, and judges, who are still quoted as models of legal knowledge and discernment, not only permitted such cases to go to a jury, but allowed sentences to be recorded which consigned reputed wizards to capital punishment. In Poland, even so late as the year 1739, a juggler was exposed to the torture, until a confession was extracted from him that he was a sorcerer; upon which, without further proof, he was hanged; and instances in other countries might be multiplied without end. But this, although it exceeds in atrocity, does not equal in absurdity the sanguinary and bigoted infatuation of the Inquisition in Portugal, which actually condemned to the flames, as being possessed of the devil, a horse belonging to an Englishman who had taught it perform some uncommon tricks; and the poor animal is confidently said to have been publicly burned at Lisbon, in conformity with his sentence, in the year 1601. The only part of Europe in which the acts of sorcery obtain any great credit, where, in fact, supposed wizards will practice incantations, by which they pretend to obtain the knowledge of future events, and in which the credulity of the people induced them to place the most implicit confidence. On such occasions a magical drum is usually employed. This instrument is formed of a piece of wood of a semi-oval form, hollow on the flat side, and there covered with a skin, on which various uncouth figures are depicted; among which, since the introduction of Christianity into that country, an attempt is usually made to represent the acts of our Saviour and the apostles. On this covering several brass rings of different sizes are laid, while the attendants dispose themselves in many antic postures, in order to facilitate the charm; the drum is then beat with the horn of a rein-deer, which occasioning the skin to vibrate, puts the rings in motion round the figures, and, according to the position which they occupy, the officiating seer pronounces his prediction[46]. “The remedy,” says a late writer[47], “specifically appropriated for these maladies of the mind, is the cultivation of natural knowledge; and it is equally curious and gratifying to observe, that though the lights of science are attained by only a small proportion of the community, the benefits of it diffuse themselves universally; for the belief of ghosts and witches, and judicial astrology, hardly exists, in these days, even amongst the lowest vulgar. This effect of knowledge, in banishing the vain fears of superstition, is finely alluded to in the last words of the following admirable lines quoted from Virgil, _e. g._— Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, Atque metus omnes et inexorable fatum, Subjicit pedibus, _Strepitumque Acherontes avari_. But in order to shew with what fervour the belief in witches and apparitions was maintained about a century and a half ago, we lay before our readers, as it is scarce, “Doctor Henry More, his letter, with the postscript to Mr. J. Glanvil[48], minding him of the great expedience and usefulness of his new intended edition of the Dæmon of Tedworth, and briefly representing to him the marvellous weakness and gullerie of Mr. Webster’s[49] display of Witchcraft.” “Sir, “When I was at London, I called on your bookseller, to know in what forwardness this new intended impression of the story of the Dæmon of Tedworth (see p. 223) was, which will undeceive the world touching that fame spread abroad, as if Mr. _Mompesson_ and yourself had acknowledged the business to have been a meer trick or imposture. But the story, with your ingenious considerations about witchcraft, being so often printed already, he said it behoved him to take care how he ventured on a new impression, unless he had some new matter of that kind to add, which might make this edition the more certainly saleable; and therefore he expected the issue of that noised story of the spectre at _Exeter_, seen so oft for the discovery of a murther committed some thirty years ago. But the event of this business, as to juridical process, not answering expectation, he was discouraged from making use of it, many things being reported to him from thence in favour of the party most concerned. But I am told of one Mrs. _Britton_, her appearing to her maid after her death, very well attested, though not of such a tragical event as that of _Exeter_, which he thought considerable. But of discoveries of murther I never met with any story more plain and unexceptionable than that in Mr. John Webster his display of supposed Witchcraft: the book indeed itself, I confess, is but a weak and impertinent piece; but that story weighty and convincing, and such as himself, (though otherwise an affected caviller against almost all stories of witchcraft and apparitions,) is constrained to assent to, as you shall see from his own confession. I shall, for your better ease, or because you may not haply have the book, transcribe it out of the writer himself, though it be something, chap. 16, page 298, about the year of our Lord 1632, (as near as I can remember, having lost my notes and the copy of the letters to Serjeant _Hutton_, but I am sure that I do most perfectly remember the substance of the story.) “Near unto Chester-le-Street, there lived one _Walker_, a yeoman of good estate, and a widower, who had a young woman to his kinswoman, that kept his house, who was by the neighbours suspected to be with child, and was towards the dark of the evening one night sent away with one Mark Sharp, who was a collier, or one that digged coals underground, and one that had been born in _Blakeburn_ hundred, in _Lancashire_; and so she was not heard of a long time, and no noise or tittle was made about it. In the winter time after, one _James Graham_, or _Grime_, (for so in that country they call them) being a miller, and living about 2 miles from the place where _Walker_ lived, was one night alone in the mill very late grinding corn, and about 12 or 1 a clock at night, he came down stairs from having been putting corn in the hopper: the mill doors being shut, there stood a woman upon the midst of the floor with her hair about her head hanging down and all bloody, with five large wounds on her head. He being much affrighted and amazed, began to bless himself, and at last asked her who she was and what she wanted? To which she said, _I am the spirit of such a woman who lived with Walker, and being got with child by him, he promised to send me to a private place, where I should be well lookt too till I was brought in bed and well again, and then I should come again and keep his house. And accordingly_, said the apparition, _I was one night late sent away with one Mark Sharp, who upon a moor_, naming a place that the miller knew, _slew me with a pick, such as men dig coals withal, and gave me these five wounds, and after threw my body into a coal pit hard by, and hid the pick under a bank; and his shoes and stockings being bloody, he endeavoured to wash ’em; but seeing the blood would not forth, he hid them there_. And the apparition further told the miller, that he must be the man to reveal it, or else that she must still appear and haunt him. The miller returned home very sad and heavy, but spoke not one word of what he had seen, but eschewed as much as he could to stay in the mill within night without company, thinking thereby to escape the seeing again of that frightful apparition. But notwithstanding, one night when it began to be dark, the apparition met him again, and seemed very fierce and cruel, and threatened him, that if he did not reveal the murder she would continually pursue and haunt him; yet for all this, he still concealed it until _St. Thomas’s Eve_, before _Christmas_, when being soon after sun-set in his garden, she appeared again, and then so threatened him, and affrighted him, that he faithfully promised to reveal it next morning. In the morning he went to a magistrate and made the whole matter known with all the circumstances; and diligent search being made, the body was found in a coal pit, with five wounds in the head, and the pick, and shoes and stockings yet bloody, in every circumstance as the apparition had related to the miller; whereupon Walker and Mark Sharp were both apprehended, but would confess nothing. At the assizes following, I think it was at Durham, they were arraigned, found guilty, condemned, and executed; but I could never hear they confest the fact. There were some that reported the apparition did appear to the judge or the foreman of the jury, who was alive in Chester-le-Street about ten years ago, as I have been credibly informed, but of that I know no certainty: there are many persons yet alive that can remember this strange murder and the discovery of it; for it was, and sometimes yet is, as much discoursed of in the North Country as any that almost has ever been heard of, and the relation printed, though now not to be gotten. I relate this with great confidence, (though I may fail in some of the circumstances) because I saw and read the letter that was sent to sergeant _Hutton_, who then lived at _Goldsbrugh_, in _Yorkshire_, from the judge before whom _Walker_ and _Mark Sharp_ were tried, and by whom they were condemned, and had a copy of it until about the year 1658, when I had it, and many other books and papers taken from me; and this I confess to be one of the most convincing stories, being of undoubted verity, that ever I read, heard, or knew of, and carrieth with it the most evident force to make the most incredulous to be satisfied that there are really sometimes such things as apparitions.” Thus far he. “This story is so considerable that I make mention of it in my Scholea, on the Immortality of the Soul, in my _Volumen Philosophicum_, tom. 2, which I acquainting a friend of mine with, a prudent, intelligent person, Dr. J. D. he of his own accord offered me, it being a thing of much consequence, to send to a friend of his in the north for greater assurance of the truth of the narrative, which motion I willingly embracing, he did accordingly. The answer to this letter from his friend _Mr. Sheperdson_, is this: _I have done_ what I can to inform myself of the passage of _Sharpe and Walker; there are very few men that I could meet that were then men, or at the tryal, saving these two in the inclosed paper, both men at that time, and both at the trial; and for Mr. Lumley, he lived next door to Walker, and what he hath given under his hand, can depose if there were occasion. The other gentleman writ his attestation with his own hand; but I being not there got not his name to it. I could have sent you twenty hands that could have said thus much and more by hearsay, but I thought those most proper that could speak from their own eyes and ears._ Thus far (continues Dr. More,) Mr. Sheperdson, the Doctor’s discreet and faithful intelligencer. Now for _Mr. Lumly_, or _Mr. Lumley_. Being an ancient gentleman, and at the trial of _Walker_ and _Sharp_ upon the murder of _Anne Walker_, saith, That he doth very well remember that the said Anne was servant to _Walker_, and that she was supposed to be with child, but would not disclose by whom; but being removed to her aunt’s in the same town called _Dame Caire_, told her aunt (Dame Caire) that he that got her with child, would take care both of her and it, and bid her not trouble herself. After some time she had been at her aunt’s, it was observed that Sharp came to Lumley one night, being a sworn brother of the said Walker’s; and they two that night called her forth from her aunt’s house, which night she was murdered; about fourteen days after the murder, there appeared to one Graime, a fuller, at his mill, six miles from _Lumley_, the likeness of a woman with her hair about her head, and the appearance of five wounds in her head, as the said Graime gave it in evidence; that that appearance bid him go to a justice of peace, and relate to him, how that Walker and Sharp had murthered her in such a place as she was murthered; but he, fearing to disclose a thing of that nature against a person of credit as Walker was, would not have done it; upon which the said Graime did go to a justice of peace and related the whole matter[50]. Whereupon the justice of peace granted warrants against _Walker_ and _Sharp_, and committed them to a prison; but they found bail to appear at the next assizes, at which they came to their trial, and upon evidence of the circumstances, with that of Graime of the appearance, they were both found guilty and executed. “The other testimony is that of _Mr. James Smart and William Lumley, of the city of Durham_, who saith, that the trial of _Sharp_ and _Walker_ was in the month of _August_ 1631, before judge _Davenport_. One Mr. Fanhair gave it in evidence upon oath, that he saw the likeness of a child stand upon Walker’s shoulders during the time of the trial, at which time the judge was very much troubled, and gave sentence that night the trial was, which was a thing never used in Durham before nor after; out of which two testimonies several things may be counted or supplied in Mr. Webster’s story, though it be evident enough that in the main they agree; for that is but a small disagreement as to the years, when Mr. Webster says about the year of our Lord 1632, and Mr. Fanhair, 1631. But unless at Durham they have assizes but once in the year, I understand not so well how Sharp and Walker should be apprehended some little time after St. Thomas’s day, as Mr. Webster has, and be tried the next assizes at Durham, and yet that be in August, according to Mr. Smart’s testimony. Out of Mr. Lumley’s testimony the christian name of the young woman is supplied, as also the name of the town near Chester-le-Street, namely, Lumley: the circumstance also of Walker’s sending away his kinswoman with Mark Sharp are supplied out of Mr. Lumley’s narrative, and the time rectified, by telling it was about fourteen days till the spectre after the murder, when as Mr. Webster makes it a long time.” We shall not follow the learned Doctor through the whole of his letter, which principally now consists in rectifying some little discrepancies in the account of the murder of Anne Walker, and the execution of the murderers, upon circumstantial evidence, supported by the miller’s story of the apparition, between the account given by Mr. Webster, and that here related by Lumley and Sharp. Mr. Webster’s account, it would appear, was taken from a letter written by Judge Davenport to Sergeant Hutton, giving a detailed narrative of the whole proceeding as far as came within his judicial observation, and the exercise of his functions; which it also appears Dr. More likewise saw; a copy of which, he states, he had in fact by him for some considerable time, but which he unfortunately lost: his account, therefore, is from sheer recollection of the contents of this letter, but as there is very little difference in the material points, unless with respect to the date of the year, between the account given by Webster, and that related from the Doctor’s memory, we shall offer no further observation than that the whole savours so much of other similar stories, the result of superstition and ignorance, that it claims an equal proportion of credit: for if, at the time we allude to, they would hang, burn, or drown a woman for a witch, either upon her own evidence, or that of some of her malignant and less peaceably disposed neighbours, it cannot be matter of surprise, that two individuals, for a crime really committed, should be hanged as murderers upon the testimony of the apparition of a murdered person, given through the organ of a miller, who resided only six miles from the spot. That Dr. Henry More was not only an enthusiast and a visionary, (both of which united in the same person, constitute a canting madman) but also a humorous kind of fellow when he chose to be jocular, and it would appear he was by no means incapable of relaxing the gravity of his countenance as occasion served him, may be still further inferred from the following extracts of the sequel of his letter to the Reverend Joseph Glanvil:— “This story of Anne Walker, (says Dr. M.) I think you will do well to put amongst your additions in the new impression of your new edition of your Dæmon of Tedworth, it being so excellently well attested, AND SO UNEXCEPTIONABLE IN EVERY RESPECT; and hasten as fast as you can that impression, to undeceive the half-witted world, who so much exult and triumph in the extinguishing the belief of that narration, as if the crying down the truth of that of the Dæmon of Tedworth, were indeed the very slaying of the devil, and that they may now, with more gaiety and security than ever, sing in a loud note, that mad drunken catch— Hay ho! the Devil is dead, &c. Which wild song, though it may seem a piece of levity to mention, yet, believe me, the application thereof bears a sober and weighty intimation along with it, _viz._ that these sort of people are very horribly afraid that there should be any spirit, lest there should be a devil, and an account after this life; and therefore they are impatient of any thing that implies it, that they may with a more full swing, and with all security from an after reckoning, indulge their own lusts and humours; and I know by long experience that nothing rouses them so much out of that dull lethargy of atheism and sadducism, as narrations of this kind, for they being of a thick and gross spirit, the most subtle and solid deductions of reason does little execution upon them; but this sort of sensible experiments cuts them and stings them very sore, and so startles them, that a less considerable story by far than this of the drummer of Tedworth, or of Ann Walker, a Doctor of Physic cryed out presently, _if this be true I have been in a wrong box all this time, and must begin my account anew_. “And I remember an old gentleman, in the country, of my acquaintance, an excellent justice of peace, and a piece of a mathematician, but what kind of a philosopher he was you may understand from a rhyme of his own making, which he commended to me at my taking horse in his yard; which rhyme is this:— Ens _is nothing till sense finds out; Sense ends in nothing, so naught goes about_. Which rhyme of his was so rapturous to himself, that at the reciting of the second verse the old man turned himself about upon his toe as nimbly as one may observe a dry leaf whisked round in the corner of an orchard walk, by some little whirlwind. With this philosopher I have had many discourses concerning the immortality of the soul and its destruction: when I have run him quite down by reason, he would but laugh at me, and say, this is logic, H., calling me by my christian name; to which I replied, this is reason, Father L., (for I used and some others to call him) but it seems you are for the new lights and the immediate inspirations, which I confess he was as little for as for the other; but I said so only in the way of drollery to him in those times, but truth is, nothing but palpable experience would move him, and being a bold man, and fearing nothing, he told me he had used all the magical ceremonies of conjuration he could to raise the devil or a spirit, and had a most earnest desire to meet with one, but never could do it. But this he told me, when he did not so much as think of it, while his servant was pulling off his boots in the hall, some invisible hand gave him such a clap upon the back that it made all ring again; so, thought he, I am invited to converse with a spirit; and therefore so soon as his boots were off and his shoes on, out he goes into the yard and next field to find out the spirit that had given him this familiar slap on the back, but found him neither in the yard nor the next field to it. “But though he did not feel this stroke, albeit he thought it afterwards (finding nothing came of it) a mere delusion; yet not long before his death it had more force with him than all the philosophical arguments I could use to him, though I could wind him and non-plus him as I pleased; but yet all my arguments, how solid soever, made no impression upon him, wherefore after several reflections of this nature, whereby I would prove to him the soul’s distinction from the body, and its immortality, when nothing of such subtile considerations did any more execution in his mind, than some lightening is said to do, though it melts the sword on the fuzzy consistency of the scabbard: _Well, said I, Father L., though none of these things move you, I have something still behind, and what yourself has acknowledged to me to be true, that may do the business: do you remember the clap on your back, when your servant was pulling off your boots in the hall? Assure yourself_, said I, _Father L., that goblin will be the first that will bid you welcome in the other world_. Upon that his countenance changed most sensibly, and he was more confounded with rubbing up of his memory than with all the rational and philosophical argumentations that I could produce.” How the various commentators on holy writ have reconciled to their minds the existence of spirits, witches, hobgoblins, devils, &c. we are unable to decide, for the want of a folio before us; but, if there are none of this evil-boding fraternity “wandering in air” at the present day, they must be all swamped in the Red sea, ready to be conjured up from the “vasty deep,” by the king of spirits alone; for as sure as the Bible is the word of truth, we find therein such descriptions of spirits, apparitions, witches, and devils, as would make an ordinary man’s hair stand on end. And it is from this source alone that Dr. More argues for their existence, and which he has fully corroborated by his old hobby, “The Dæmon of Tedworth,” and the unfortunate Anne Walker. “Indeed (says the learned divine) if there were any modesty left in mankind, the histories of the Bible might abundantly assure men of the existence of angels and spirits.” In another place he observes, “I look upon it as a special piece of providence that there are ever and anon such fresh examples of apparitions and witchcraft, as may rub up and awaken their benumbed and lethargic minds into a suspicion at least, if not assurance, that there are other intelligent beings besides those that are clothed in heavy earth or clay; in this I say, methinks the divine providence does plainly interest the powers of the dark kingdom, permitting wicked men and women, and vagrant spirits of that kingdom, to make leagues or covenant one with another, the confession of witches against their own lives being so palpable an evidence, besides the miraculous feats they play, that there are bad spirits, which will necessarily open a door to the belief that there are good ones, and lastly that there is a God.” There is beyond a doubt much plausibility, supported by strong and appropriate argument, in this declaration of the Doctor’s. But as it is not our province to confute or explain texts or passages of Scripture, much less to warp them round to particular purposes, we shall reply by observing that, although we do not entirely concur in the belief of the non-existence of witches, apparitions, &c. at an earlier period of the world; we do, from our very souls, sincerely believe that there are no guests of this description, at the present day, either in the water or roaming about at large and invisible, on _terra firma_; or floating abroad in ether, holding, or capable of holding, converse or communion, either by word, deed, or sign, with the beings of this earth, civilized or uncivilized, beyond those destined by the God of heaven to constitute the different orders, classes, and genera of its accustomed and intended inhabitants. However, as we live in a tolerant mixed age, we have no fault to find with those who may attach faith to the opposite side of our creed. We shall now, previous to laying before our readers some of those dismal stories of witches, wizards, apparitions, &c. of the days of yore, give the postscript to Dr. More’s letter to the author of “Saducismus Triumphatus;” a postscript, in fact, that might with more propriety be styled a treatise on the subject it relates to; but the rarity of the document, as well as its curiosity and the great learning and ingenuity it betrays, will, we feel assured, be received as an apology for bringing it under their view in this part of our paper, on the subject matter it bears so strongly upon. We give it the more cheerfully as it exemplifies certain passages of Scripture that have never been handled, at least so well, by after-writers who have attempted the illustration. _Witchcraft proved by the following texts of Scripture._ Exodus, c. xxii, v. 18. _Thou shalt not suffer a_ WITCH _to live_. 2 Chronicles, c. xxxiii, v. 6. _And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; also he observed times, and used_ ENCHANTMENTS, _and used_ WITCHCRAFT, _and dealt with a_ FAMILIAR SPIRIT, _and with_ WIZARDS: _he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger_. Galatians, c. v, v. 20. _Idolatry_, WITCHCRAFT, _hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies_. Micah, c. v, v. 12. I will cut off WITCHCRAFTS out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers. Acts, c. xiii, v. 6, 8. ¶ And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain Sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name _was_ Bar-jesus. But Elymas the Sorcerer, (for so is his name by interpretation,) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Acts, c. viii, v. 9. ¶ But there was a certain man called Simon, which before time in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one. DEUTERONOMY, c. xviii, v. 10, 11. There shall not be found among you _any one_, that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or 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 necromancer. 12. For all that do these things are an abomination: and because of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them from before thee. _Dr. More’s Postscript._ The following scarce, curious, and learned document, long since out of print, forms a postscript written by Dr. More, who, it appears, strenuously advocated the existence of preternatural agencies, against the opinion of many eminent men, who wrote, at that time, on the same subject; and however much the belief in witches, &c. may have been depreciated of later years, we will venture to say that few of the present day, layman or divine, could take up his pen, and offer so learned a refutation against, as Dr. More has here done in support of his opinions founded on Scripture. “This letter lying by me some time before I thought it opportune to convey it, and in the meanwhile meeting more than once with those that seemed to have some opinion of Mr. Webster’s criticisms and interpretations of Scripture, as if he had quitted himself so well there, that no proof thence can hereafter be expected of the being of a witch, which is the scope that he earnestly aims at; and I reflecting upon that passage in my letter, which does not stick to condemn Webster’s whole book for a weak and impertinent piece, presently thought fit, (that you might not think that censure over-rash or unjust) it being an endless task to shew all the weakness and impertinencies of his discourse, briefly by way of _Postscript_, to hint the weakness and impertinency of this part which is counted the master-piece of the work, that thereby you may perceive that my judgment has not been at all rash touching the whole. “And in order to this, we are first to take notice what is the real scope of his book; which if you peruse, you shall certainly find to be this: That the parties ordinarily deemed witches and wizzards, are only knaves and queans, to use his phrase, and arrant cheats, or deep melancholists; but have no more to do with any evil spirit or devil, or the devil with them, than he has with other sinners or wicked men, or they with the devil. And secondly, we are impartially to define what is the true notion of a witch or wizzard, which is necessary for the detecting of Webster’s impertinencies. “As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them, they signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word wizzard, it is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose derived adjective might be _wittigh_ or _wittich_, and by contraction afterwards witch; as the noun wit is from the verb _to weet_, which is, to know. So that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latin word _saga_, according to that of Festus, _Sagæ dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt_. Thus in general: but use questionless had appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and knowledge, as was out of the common road, or extraordinary. Nor did this peculiarity imply in it any unlawfulness. But there was after a further restriction and most proper of all, and in which alone now-a-days the words _witch_ and _wizzard_ are used. And that is, for one that has the knowledge or skill of doing or telling things in an extraordinary way, and that in virtue of either an express or implicit sociation or confederacy with some evil spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of a _witch_ or _wizzard_, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such, _et vice versâ_. But to prove or defend that there neither are, nor ever were any such, is, as I said, the main scope of Webster’s book: in order to which, he endeavours in his sixth and eighth chapters to evacuate all the testimonies of Scripture; which how weakly and impertinently he has done, I shall now shew with all possible brevity and perspicuity. “The words that he descants upon are Deut. c. xviii. v. 10, 11: ‘There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a necromancer.’ The first word in the Hebrew is ‏קוסם קסמים‎, _kosem kesamim_, a diviner. Here because ‏קסם‎ _kasam_, sometimes has an indifferent sense, and signifies to divine by natural knowledge or human prudence or sagacity; therefore nothing of such a witch as is imagined to make a visible league with the devil, or to have her body sucked by him, or have carnal copulation with him, or is really turned into a cat, hare, wolf or dog, can be deduced from this word. A goodly inference indeed, and hugely to the purpose, as is apparent from the foregoing definition. But though that cannot be deduced, yet in that, this divination that is here forbidden, is plainly declared abominable and execrable, as it is _v._ 12, it is manifest that such a divination is understood that really is so; which cannot well be conceived to be, unless it imply either an express or implicite inveaglement with some evil invisible powers who assist any kind of those divinations that may be comprehended under this general term. So that this is plainly one name of witchcraft, according to the genuine definition thereof. And the very words of Saul to the witch of Endor, are, ‏קסומי נא לי באוב‎; that is to say, ‘Divine to me, I pray thee, by thy familiar spirit.’ Which is more than by natural knowledge or human sagacity. “The next word is ‏מעונן‎ _megnonen_, which, though our English translation renders [gnon] (_tempus_,) ‘an observer of times;’ which should rather be a declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a thing which is inquired of also from witches, yet the usual sense, rendered by the learned in the language, is _præstigiatur_, an imposer on the sight, _Sapientes prisci_, says Buxtorf, a ‏עין‎ [gnajin, oculus] _deduxerunt et_ ‏מעונן‎ [megnonen] _esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet et præstringit oculos, ut falsum pro vero videant_. Lo, another word that signifies a witch or a wizzard, which has its name properly from imposing on the sight, and making the by-stander believe he sees forms or transformations of things he sees not! As when Anne Bodenham transformed herself before Anne Styles in the shape of a great cat; Anne Styles’s sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to her seemed to be done, though her eyes were only deluded. But such a delusion certainly cannot be performed without confederacy with evil spirits. For to think the word signifies _præstigiator_, in that sense we translate in English, _juggler_, or a _hocus-pocus_, is so fond a conceit, that no man of any depth of wit can endure it. As if a merry juggler that plays tricks of legerdemain at a fair or market, were such an abomination to either the God of Israel, or to his law-giver Moses; or as if a hocus-pocus were so wise a wight as to be consulted as an oracle: for it is said, v. 14, ‘For the nations which thou shalt possess, they consult,’ ‏מעוננים‎ _megnonenim_. What, do they consult jugglers and hocus-pocusses? No, certainly, they consult witches or wizzards, and diviners, as Anne Styles did Anne Bodenham.’ Wherefore here is evidently a second name of a witch. “The third word in the text is ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, which our English translation renders, an enchanter. And, with Mr. Webster’s leave, (who insulteth so over their supposed ignorance) I think they have translated it very learnedly and judiciously; for charming and enchanting, as Webster himself acknowledges, and the words intimate, being all one, the word, ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, here, may very well signify enchanters, or charmers; but such properly as kill serpents by their charming, from ‏נחש‎ _nachash_, which signifies a serpent, from whence comes ‏נחש‎ _nichesh_, to kill serpents, or make away with them. For a verb in _pihel_, sometimes (especially when it is formed from a noun) has a contrary signification. Thus from ‏שרש‎ _radix_ is ‏שרש‎ _radices evulsit_, from ‏דשן‎ _cinis_ ‏דשן‎ _removit cineres_, from ‏חטא‎ _peccavit_ ‏חטא‎ _expiavit à peccato_; and so lastly from ‏נחש‎ _serpens_, is made ‏נחש‎ _liberavit â serpentibus, nempe occidendo vel fugando per incantationem_. And therefore there seems to have been a great deal of skill and depth of judgment in our English translators that rendered ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, an enchanter, especially when that of augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint call Ὀιωνιζόμενον (there being so many harmless kinds of it) might seem less suitable with this black list: for there is no such abomination in adventuring to tell, when the wild geese fly high in great companies, and cackle much, that hard weather is at hand, but to rid serpents by a charm is above the power of nature; and therefore an indication of one that has the assistance of some invisible spirit to help him in this exploit, as it happens in several others; and therefore this is another name of one that is really a witch. “The fourth word is ‏מכשף‎ _mecasseph_, which our English translators render, a witch; for which I have no quarrel with them, unless they should so understand it that it must exclude others from being so in that sense I have defined, which is impossible they should. But this, as the foregoing, is but another term of the same thing; that is, of a witch in general, but so called here from the prestigious imposing on the sight of beholders. Buxtorf tells us, that Aben Ezra defines those to be ‏מכשפים‎ [mecassephim] _qui mutant et transformant res naturales ad aspectum oculi_. Not as jugglers and hocus-pocusses, as Webster would ridiculously insinuate, but so as I understood the thing in the second name; for these are but several names of a witch, who may have several more properties than one name intimates. Whence it is no wonder that translators render not them always alike. But so many names are reckoned up here in this clause of the law of Moses, that, as in our common law, the sense may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that here this name is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common jugglers that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but that it is the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s sight, and so are most certainly witches, is plain from Exod. chap. xxii, v. 18, ‘Thou shalt not suffer,’ ‏מכשפה‎ _mecassephah_, that is, ‘a witch, to live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather cruelty, against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain. “The fifth name is ‏חובר חבר‎ _chobher chebher_, which our English translators render charmer, which is the same with enchanter. Webster upon this name is very tedious and flat, a many words and small weight in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: this ‏חובר חבר‎, _chobher chebher_, that is to say, _socians societatem_, is another name of a witch, so called specially either from the consociating together serpents by a charm, which has made men usually turn it (from the example of the Septuagint, ἐπάδων ἐπαοιδὴν,) a charmer, or an enchanter, or else from the society or compact of the witch with some evil spirits; which Webster acknowledges to have been the opinion of two very learned men, Martin Luther and Perkins, and I will add a third, Aben Ezra, (as Martinius hath noted,) who gives this reason of the word ‏חובר‎ _chobher_, an enchanter, which signifies _socians_ or _jungens_, viz. _Quòd malignos spiritus sibi associat_. And certainly one may charm long enough, even till his heart aches, ere he make one serpent assemble near him, unless helped by this confederacy of spirits that drive them to the charmer. He keeps a pudder with the sixth verse of the fifty-eighth Psalm to no purpose; whereas from the Hebrew, ‏אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים חובר חברים מחכם‎, if you repeat ἀπὸ κοινoῦ ‏לקול‎ before ‏חובר‎, you may with ease and exactness render it thus: ‘That hears not the voice of muttering charmers, no not the voice of a confederate wizzard, or charmer that is skilful.’ But seeing charms, unless with them that are very shallow and sillily credulous, can have no such effects of themselves, there is all the reason in the world (according as the very word intimates, and as Aben Ezra has declared,) to ascribe the effect to the assistance, confederacy, and co-operation of evil spirits, and so ‏חובר חברים‎, _chobher chabharim_, or ‏חובר חבר‎ _chobher chebher_, will plainly signify a witch or wizzard according to the true definition of them. But for J. Webster’s rendering this verse, p. 119, thus, _Quæ non audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes docti incantantis_, (which he saith is doubtless the most genuine rendering of the place) let any skilful man apply it to the Hebrew text, and he will presently find it grammatical nonsense. If that had been the sense, it should have been ‏חברי חובר מחכם‎. “The sixth word is ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, which our English translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the Septuagint Ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him that has this familiar spirit: and therefore ‏שואל אוב‎ _shoel obh_, I conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood) is to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel of his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others. The reason of the name of ‏אוב‎ _obh_, it is likely was taken first from that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation to that circumstance, _OBH_ signifies as much as _pytho_; as _pytho_ also, though at first it took its name from the _pythii vates_, signifies no more than _spiritum divinationis_, in general, a spirit that tells hidden things, or things to come. And _OBH_ and _pytho_ also agree in this, that they both signify either the divinatory spirit itself, or the party that has that spirit. But here in ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, it being rendered by the Septuagint Ἐγγαςείμυθος, _OBH_ is necessarily understood of the spirit itself, as _pytho_ is, Acts xvi. 16, if you read πνεῦμα πύδωνα, with Isaac Casaubon; but if πύθωνος, it may be understood either way. Of this πνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in that place, that ‘Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he came out at the same hour;’ which signifies as plainly as any thing can be signified, that this _pytho_ or spirit of divination, that this _OBH_ was in her: for nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the sack, as the Spanish proverb has it; nor could this _pytho_ come out of her unless it was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at the profane impudence of J. Webster, that makes this _pytho_ in the maid there mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that maid than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would have understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical conceit he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most unjust to Beza, so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous against the spirit of Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them both such fools as to believe that there was a spirit or divining devil in the maid, when according to him there is no such thing. Can any thing be more frantic or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no spirit or devil in the damsel? But what will this profane shuffler stick to do in a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he is sworn advocate, and resolved patron right or wrong? “But to proceed, that ‏אוב‎, _obh_, signifies the spirit itself that divines, not only he that has it, is manifest from Levit. xx. 27, _Vir autem sive mulier cùm fuerit_ [‏בהם אוב‎] _in eis pytho_. And 1 Sam. xxviii. 8, _Divina quæso mihi_ [‏באוב‎] _per pythonem_. In the Septuagint it is ἐν τῶν Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ, that is, by that spirit that sometimes goes into the body of the party, and thence gives answers; but here it only signifies a familiar spirit. And lastly, ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath obh_, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, _Quæ habit pythonem_; there _OBH_ must needs signify the spirit itself, of which she of Endor was the owner or possessor; that is to say, it was her familiar spirit. But see what brazen and stupid impudence will do here, ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath obh_, with Webster must not signify one that has a familiar spirit, but the mistress of the bottle. Who but the master of the bottle, or rather of whom the bottle had become master, and by guzzling had made his wits excessively muddy and frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish interpretation? But because ‏אוב‎ _obh_, in one place of the Scripture signifies a bottle, it must signify so here, and it must be the instrument forsooth, out of which this cheating quean of Endor does ‘whisper, peep, or chirp like a chicken coming out of the shell,’ p. 129, 165. And does she not, I beseech you, put her nib also into it sometimes, as into a reed, as it is said of that bird, and cries like a butter-bump? certainly he might as well have interpreted ‏בעלת אוב‎ _bagnalath obh_, of the great tun of Heidelberg, that Tom. Coriat takes such special notice of, as of the bottle. “And truly so far as I see, it must be some such huge tun at length rather than the bottle, that is, such a spacious tub as he in his deviceful imagination fancies Manasses to have built; a μανείον forsooth, or oracular edifice for ‘cheating rogues and queans to play their cozening tricks in;’ from that place 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6, ‏ועשה אוב‎, _Et fecit pythonem_. Now, says he, how could Manasses make a familiar spirit? or make one that had a familiar spirit? Therefore he made a bottle a tun, or a large tub, a μαντεῖον, or oracular edifice ‘for cheating rogues or queans to play their cozening tricks in.’ Very wisely argued, and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, whereas if he had looked into Buxtorf’s Dictionary he might have understood that ‏עשה‎ signifies not only _fecit_ but also _paravit_, _comparavit_, _acquisivit_, _magni fecit_, none of which words imply the making of _OBH_ in his sense, but the only appointing them to be got, and countenancing them. For in Webster’s sense he did not make ‏ידעני‎ _jidegnoni_ neither, that is wizzards, and yet Manasses is said to make them both alike. ‏יעשה אוב וידעני‎, _Et fecit pythonem et magos_. So plain is it that ‏אוב‎, _obh_, signifies _pytho_, and that adequately in the same sense that _pytho_ does, either a familiar spirit, or him that has that spirit of divination. But in ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath obh_, it necessarily signifies the familiar spirit itself, which assisted the witch of Endor; whereby it is manifest she is rightly called a witch. As for his stories of counterfeit ventriloquists, (and who knows but some of his counterfeit ventriloquists may prove true ones,) that is but the threadbare sophistry of Sadducees and Atheists to elude the faith of all true stories by those that are of counterfeits or feigned. “The seventh word is ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, which our English translators render a wizzard. And Webster is so kind as to allow them to have translated this word aright. Wizzards, then, Webster will allow, that is to say, he-witches, but not she-witches. How tender the man is of that sex! But the word invites him to it ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, coming from _scire_, and answering exactly to wizzard or wise man. And does not witch from _wit_ and _weet_ signify as well a wise woman, as I noted above? And as to the sense of those words from whence they are derived, there is no hurt herein; and therefore if that were all, ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, had not been in this black list. Wherefore it is here understood in that more restrict and worse sense: so as we understand usually now-a-days witch and wizzard, such wise men and women whose skill is from the confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore are real wizzards and witches. In what a bad sense ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, is understood, we may learn, from Levit. xx. 27, ‘A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizzard, _jidegnoni_, shall be put to death, they shall stone them with stones,’ &c. “The last word is ‏דורש המתים‎, _doresh hammethim_, which our translators rightly render _necromancers_; that is, those that either upon their own account, or desired by others, do raise the ghosts of the deceased to consult with; which is a more particular term than ‏בעל אוב‎, _bagnal obh_: but he that is _bagnal obh_, may be also _doresh hammethim_, a necromancer, as appears in the witch of Endor. Here Webster by ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, the dead, would understand dead statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the Scripture where the word ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, is used of what was not once alive. He thinks he hits the nail on the head in that place of Isaiah, viii. 19, ‘And when they say unto you, seek unto [‏האבות‎, that is, to ‏בעליה אוב‎, such as the witch of Endor was,] them that have familiar spirits, and to wizzards that peep and that mutter; [the Hebrew has it ‏המהגים‎ and ‏המצפצפים‎; that is, speak with a querulous murmurant or mussitant voice, when they either conjure up the spirit, or give responses. If this be to ‘peep like a chicken,’ Isaiah himself peeped like a chicken, xxxviii. 14,] should not a people seek unto their God? for the living, (‏אל המתים‎,) to the dead?’ Where _hammethim_ is so far from signifying dead statues, that it must needs be understood of the ghosts of dead men, as here in Deuteronomy. None but one that had either stupidly or wilfully forgot the story of Samuel’s being raised by that ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath obh_, the witch of Endor, could ever have the face to affirm that ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, here in Isaiah, is to be understood of dead statues, when wizzards or necromancers were so immediately mentioned before, especially not Webster, who acknowledges that ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, signifies a necromancer in this Deuteronomical list of names. And therefore, forsooth, would have it a tautology that _doresh hammethim_ should signify so too. But I say it is no tautology, this last being more express and restrict. And besides, this enumeration is not intended as an accurate logical division of witches or witchcraft, into so many distinct kinds, but a reciting of several names of that ill trade, though they will interfere one with another, and have no significations so precisely distinct. But as I said before, this fuller recounting of them is made that the prohibition in this form might be the surer fence against the sin. And now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, if _doresh hammethim_ will not signify a witch of Endor, when it must necessarily signify a necromancer, which is as much against his tooth as the other? Nay indeed this necromancer is also a witch or wizzard, according to the definition produced above. “The rest of the chapter being so inconsiderable, and I having been so long already upon it, I shall pass to the next, after I have desired you to take notice how weak and childish, or wild and impudent, Mr. Webster has been in the interpretation of Scripture hitherto, in the belief of his sage dames, to fence off the reproach of being termed witches; whereas there is scarce one word in this place of Deuteronomy that does not imply a witch or wizzard, according to the real definition thereof. And truly he seems himself to be conscious of the weakness of his own performance, when after all this ado, the sum at last amounts but to this, that there are no names in all the Old Testament that signifies such a witch that destroy men or beasts, that make a visible compact with the devil, or on whose body he sucketh, or with whom he hath carnal copulation, or that is really changed into a cat, hare, dog, or such like. And to shew it amounts to no more than so, was the task we undertook in this chapter. “But assure yourself, if you peruse his book carefully, you shall plainly find that the main drift thereof is to prove, as I above noted, that there is no such witch as with whom the devil has any thing more to do than with any other sinner, which, notwithstanding this conclusion of his a little before recited, comes infinitely short of: and therefore this sixth chapter, consisting of about thirty pages in folio, is a meer piece of impertinency. And there will be witches for all this, whether these particulars be noted in them or no; for it was sufficient for Moses to name those ill sounding terms in general, which imply a witch according to that general notion I have above delivered; which if it be prohibited, namely, the having any thing to do with evil spirits, their being suckt by them, or their having any lustful or venerous transactions with them, is much more prohibited. “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 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. “For I have made my postscript much longer than my letter, before I was aware; and I need not enlarge to you, who are so well versed in these things already, and can by the quickness of your parts presently collect the whole measures of Hercules by his foot, and sufficiently understand by this time it is no rash censure of mine in my letter, that Webster’s