Immortality proved by the testimony of sense

by Abraham Cummings

The preaching of the gospel was not her design; but she had other designs which appropriate the sentence, “I am not to be trifled with.”

In some old fashioned minds, her familiar conversation may excite the suspicion of necromancy and divination, by a familiar spirit, so plainly forbidden in the law of Moses: and then doubtless Mrs. Butler must bear the accusation. But there is no evidence that this angel conversed more familiarly with her than with others who were never suspected. She conversed familiarly with all those who had much conversation with her.

The ancient idea of a familiar spirit appears not to have been obtained from the familiar conversation of any person with a spirit, (though sometimes the inquirer might be deceived by the artificial resemblance of it) but from the opinion that certain persons had a spirit foreign to their own, residing in them and uttering oracles from their bodies.[56] These persons were a sort of ventriloquists. Their conduct is described by Rollin in his account of the Grecian Oracles. The speech of their familiar spirit was imagined to proceed, not from the lips of any person, but from a part of their own bodies, in some manner artificially swollen. This is confirmed by their very name Abefeth, in the Hebrew language, which has the signification of swelling. The familiar spirit itself was called Afeb, which is the same noun in the singular number. The swollen part and the familiar spirit, which was imagined to reside in it, had one name. “Divine unto me by the Afeb,” said Saul, 1 Sam. 28: 8. Divine unto me by the swelling, and bring me up whom I shall name unto thee. But it does not appear that the woman had any time for divination. She saw Samuel unexpectedly, and cried out for fear:[57] and Samuel, instead of being familiar with her, never spake a single word to her. Now it is not even pretended that any such token of Afeb or necromancy, have appeared among us.

Doubtless this wickedness among the ancients, was for the most part legerdemain,[58] and their predictions always uncertain, as appears not only from their ambiguity, but from the public estimation of some oracles in preference to others, and of the Delphic oracle above all the rest.

From the observations now made, we learn the criminality of witchcraft or legerdemain, for there is no essential difference between them.

To counterfeit the royal seal was ever a capital crime. How presumptuously criminal then are they, who counterfeit the royal seal of heaven! The certificate of divine revelation, such is the conduct of every mountebank, while the spectator is left ignorant of his art. His false miracles spread a cloud of uncertainty over the minds of men, so that many are at loss how to distinguish the true miracle, the true seal of the King of heaven, from its counterfeit. And they who countenance and encourage such persons, are guilty of far greater evil than the great evil of wasting time and property. But such behaviour is the food of infidelity. No wonder it is so common at the present day.

Whether the writer is one who gives such countenance and encouragement, is for the next writer on the subject of these pages to shew,[59] not by pointing out inaccuracies here and there, for this any person may easily do, but by presenting to the public a complete, satisfactory analysis of this whole mystery.

To his particular notice, I ask leave to offer a few cautionary observations; if needless for him, they may assist another.

Among so many of us who have heard and seen the Spectre, it would be very strange, if, in the course of twenty-six years past, no one should have deviated from the strait line of perfect rectitude. If imperfection should be found among us, and the publicity of it will cast any light upon this subject, by all means let it come forth: if not, let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone.

The question is not, How have we conducted, unless our conduct be such as invalidates our evidence: for we are liable to evil every day; but, How has the Spectre conducted? and who could she be? It has been frequently reported among people at a distance from this scene, for more than twenty years, that the whole business was an artifice, and fairly proved to be such. We who believe the existence of the Spectre, have thought that this inaccurate on dit has had currency long enough. Our respondent, therefore, will not fail to shew our mistake, by demonstrating that this report is indeed correct. Suppose then, (no matter how distant the supposition is from what has really happened) suppose then, I say, that, in the course of his zealous inquiries, our respondent should find that he, who pretends to have discovered the plot, is a witness in favor of the Spectre, and that his testimony was connected with a solemn and public profession of his firm belief that the Spectre was really such as she professed to be. Suppose further, that in contemplating the dates of these events, our respondent should find that the discovery preceded that testimony and that solemn, public profession: to say nothing of the numerous other witnesses who might contradict him. In such a case I should imagine that a discerning, wary and unprejudiced reader would give but a cold assent to his process of demonstration.