1. The Authors that have recorded stories of this nature, are to be seriously considered, whether they have related the matter of fact by their own proper knowledge, as eye and ear-witnesses of it, or have taken it up by hear-say, common fame, or the relation of others: and if what they relate, were not of their own certain knowledge or αὐτοψία, then is it of little or no credit at all; for the other that relates it, might be guilty either of active or passive deception and delusion, or might have heard it from another, or by common report: of all which there is no certainty, but leaveth sufficient grounds for dubitation, and is sufficient to caution a prudent person altogether to suspend his assent, until better proof can be brought. There is a story related by Plinius Cæcilius to his friend Sura, of a House in Athens that was haunted by a Spirit in so terrible and frightful a manner, that it was left utterly forsaken, and none would inhabit in it, until that Athenodorus the Philosopher adventured upon it, and abode the coming of the Apparition or Phantasm, and upon its signs followed it to a place below, and then it vanished: he marked the place, and went to the Magistrate, and caused the place to be digged up, and found the bones of a person inchained or fettered, and caused the bones to be buried, and so the House remained free afterwards. It is a wonder to think how many Authors have swallowed this relation (nay even Philip Camerarius himself, who though a very Learned man, yet in things of this nature too extremely credulous) and urged it for proof, as a matter of great credit and authority, when we cannot discern that it affords any credible ground to a rational man to believe it, not only because the very matter it self, and the circumstances of it, do yield sufficient grounds of the suspicion of its verity; but chiefly because Pliny doth but relate it by hear-say, exponam ut accepi, and of it and the rest he desires the opinion of his Friend Sura, from whom we do not find any answer. The story taken from Plutarch (a grave Author, if he be considered as an Heathen and a Moralist) yet of no authority to decide such points as these are of the voice that called upon Thamus, and commanded him to declare when he came at Palodes, that the great God Pan was dead, which he performed, and that thereupon followed a great lamentation of many: the story at large is related by many, and urged as a matter of great weight and credibility, when indeed there is no ground sufficient to perswade any that it was true. For if it had been related by Plutarch as an ear-witness of it, yet was he but an Heathen, that we know believed many fond, lying, and impossible things, especially of their Gods; and therefore in this case to a considerate Christian could be of no great authority. And if his authority had been great, or of weight in such matters as these, yet was he but singularis testis, which is not sufficient in these things to be relied upon. And lastly (to our present purpose here) he doth not record it as a thing of his own certain knowledge, but of hear-say from Epitherses, who was but a single Relator, and a man of no certain veracity; and therefore we can have no rational ground to believe the truth of the story, but it may be rejected with more reason, than it can be affirmed by. Of no greater credit can his story be of Brutus his malus Genius appearing unto him, because he received this by meer Tradition and hear-say, neither could it have any other rise, but from the relation of Brutus himself, whose guilty confidence, and troubled brain, fancied such vain things; for those that were near Brutus neither saw nor heard any such matter, and therefore must have been a deception of Phansie, and no real Apparition ad extra.
The invisible World, p. 245, 246, 247.
Jo. à Jesu Mar. lib. 5. de Vit. Theres. cap. 3.
The invisible World, p. 305.
Ibid. p. 284.
2. And as evidence of the matter of fact recorded from the relation of others, is of no validity to a judicious person: so if the matter of fact be witnessed but by one single testimony (though an eye or an ear-witness) it is not sufficient, because one single person may be imperfect in some senses, or under some distemper, and so be no proper Judge of what it sees or hears; and the Word of Truth tells us, That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established; and therefore we are not (especially in such abstruse matters as these) to trust the evidence of one single testimony. To make clear this Particular, we shall relate a story or two from the credit of the Reverend and Learned Bishop Hall, joyned with his judgment of such weak and feigned Tales, one of which runs thus: “Johannes à Jesu Maria, a modern Carmelite, writing the Life of Theresia (Sainted lately by Gregory XV.) tells us, that as she was a vigilant Overseer of her Votaries in her life, so in and after death she would not be drawn away from her care and attendance: For (saith he) if any of her Sisters did but talk in the set hours of their silence, she was wont by three knocks at the door of the Cell, to put them in mind of their enjoyned taciturnity. And on a time appearing (as she did often) in a lightsome brightness to a certain Carmelite, is said thus to bespeak him; Nos cœlestes, ac vos exules amore ac puritate fœderati esse debemus, &c. We Citizens of Heaven, and ye exiled Pilgrims on earth, ought to be linked in a League of love and purity, &c. Methinks the Reporter (saith the Bishop) should fear this to be too much good fellowship for a Saint; I am sure neither Divine nor Ancient story had wont to afford such familiarity: and many have misdoubted the agency of worse, where have appeared less causes of suspicion. That this was (if any thing) an ill Spirit under that face, I am justly confident; neither can any man doubt, that looking further into the relation, finds him to come with a lye in his mouth. For thus he goes on; [We Celestial ones behold the Deity, ye banished ones worship the Eucharist, which ye ought to worship with the same affection wherewith we adore the Deity] such perfume doth this holy Devil leave behind him. The like might be instanced in a thousand Apparitions of this kind, all worthy of the same entertainment.” This is a story from one single person, a lying Carmelite, one that for interest, and upholding of Superstition and Idolatry, had feigned and forged it; for in it self it appeareth to be a meer falsity and figment, as any rational man may easily discern, and so are a thousand stories of this kind worthy of the like entertainment, that is, to be condemned for most horrid lyes. Another he tells us: “Amongst such fastidious choice of whole dry-fats of voluminous relations, I cannot forbear to single out that one famous of Magdalen de la Croix, in the year of our Lord Christ 1545, &c.” The third from the mouth of another lying Fryar named Jacobus de Pozali, in his Sermon, “That St. Macarius once went about to make peace betwixt God and Satan, &c.” Now whatsoever credit this Learned man (who in things of this kind appeareth to be as vainly credulous as any) doth seem to give unto these, or what use soever he would make of them, it is undeniably manifest to all impartial judgments, that they were but absolute forgeries and knacks of Imposture and Knavery, and (according to his own opinion) may justly be ranked amongst those thousand Apparitions of this kind, all worthy of the same entertainment, that is, to be rejected for abominable lyes or forgeries, and that for these reasons. 1. Because they are not attested by any sincere and uncorrupt ear and eye-witnesses, but by reports and relations, and that of those that were corrupt and partial, or Accomplices to bring to pass the fraud and imposture. 2. If they be run up to their first Author or Venter of the Tale, he will but be found a single Witness, which is utterly insufficient in evidencing truly a matter of fact. 3. The Relaters of them did publish them for interest sake, and upon design to advance false Doctrine, Worship, Superstition, and Idolatry, and therefore are not of validity and credit. 4. In themselves (if strictly considered) they will appear to be lying, ridiculous, contradictory in themselves, and contrary to the authority of Divine Writ, and dissonant to sound and right reason, and therefore ought to have no other entertainment, but as abominable lyes and forgeries.
Of Credul. and Incredul. pag. 159.
A serious Disswasive from Popery, pag. 38, 39.
3. But if matters of fact be witnessed and attested by many or divers persons that were ear and eye-witnesses, yet may their testimony bear no weight in the balance of Justice or right Reason, because they may be corrupt in point of interest, and so have their judgments mis-guided and biassed by the corruption of their desires and affections, or relate things out of spleen, envy, and malice; and so may not in these mysterious matters be fit authority to rely upon, nor competent evidence in these particulars, as Dr. Casaubon is forced to confess in these words: “In the relation of strange things, whether natural or supernatural, to know the temper of the Relator, if it can be known: and what interest he had, or might probably be supposed to have had, in the relation, to have it believed. And again, whether he profess to have seen it himself, or taken it upon the credit of others. And whether a man by his profession in a capacity probable to judge of the truth of those things, to which he doth bear witness.” Every one of these particulars would require a particular consideration. For if there be interest in point of Religion, then all authorities, all colour of reason is drawn in to make good this interest, and verity is commonly stifled in this contest for selfness and interest, and the adverse parties stigmatized with all the filthy lyes and enormous crimes that can be invented, as is most manifest in these instances. The Popish party finding themselves hindred and opposed in point of the highest interest, have forged a thousand false stories and tales to make good the interest of their Party, and have left no dirt and dung unscraped up to throw in the faces of their Opponents; and so have each Party done against other, where religious interest was the quarrel, as Bishop Hall hath truly observed in this passage, where he is shewing the abominable corruptions of the Church of Rome: “A Religion that cares not by what wilful falshoods it maintains a part; as Wickliffs blasphemy, Luthers advice from the Devil, Tindals Community, Calvins feigned Miracle, and blasphemous death, Bucers neck broken, Beza’s Revolt, the blasting of Huguenots, Englands want of Churches, and Christendom, Queen Elizabeths unwomanliness, her Episcopal Jurisdiction, her secret fruitfulness, English Catholicks cast in Bears skins to Dogs, Plesses shameful overthrow, Garnats straw, the Lutherans obscene Night-Revels, Scories drunken Ordination in a Tavern, the Edict of our gracious King James (An. 87.) for the establishment of Popery, our casting the crusts of our Sacrament to Dogs, and ten thousand of this nature, maliciously raised against knowledge and conscience, for the disgrace of those whom they would have hated, e’re known.”
The rise of this opinion that we are disputing against, that the Devil makes a visible and corporeal League with the Witches, that he sucks upon their bodies, hath carnal Copulation with them, and that they are changed into Hares, Dogs, Cats, or Wolves, and the like, was soon after the thirteenth hundred year of Christ, when as Frederick the Second had made a Law temporal, for the burning of Hereticks. And not long after that, was the Inquisition set up in Rome and Spain, and then did the Inquisitors and their Adherents, draw in from the Heathen Poets, and all other Authors, whatsoever might carry any colour of authority or reason, the better to countenance their bloody and unjust proceedings, where they drew thousands of people into the snare of the Inquisition for pretended Witchcraft, which they made to be Heresie. And whatsoever these have written concerning these things, such as Delrio, Bodinus, Remigius, Springerus, Niderus, Spineus, Grillandus, and a whole rabble besides not necessary to be named, are nothing but lyes and forgeries, and deserve no credit at all for these reasons. 1. Because as many of them as either were Inquisitors themselves, or those that had any dependence upon them, or received benefit by their proceedings, are all unjust and corrupt Authors and Witnesses, as writing and bearing witness for their own ends, interest, and profit, having a share in the Goods and Estates of all that were convicted and condemned: and the Wolf and Raven will be sure to give judgment on the Serpents side, that he may devour the man, though never so innocent, because they hope to have a share of his flesh, or at least to pick the bones. 2. These Authors that were the first Broachers of these monstrous stories of Apparitions and Witches, and are so frequently quoted by others, (that ought to have been more wary, and might have seen reason enough to have rejected all their feigned lyes and delusions) were not only sharers in the spoil of the Goods of the condemned (who were judged per fas & nefas) but also had another base end and interest, to wit, to advance the opinion of Purgatory, praying for the dead, setting up the vain Superstitions of the virtue of the sign of the Cross, holy Water, and the like. And therefore they did forge so many stories of Apparitions, and Souls coming forth of Purgatory, and recorded so many false, lying, and impossible things from the forced, extorted, and pretended confessions of the Witches themselves, which were nothing else but an Hotch-potch of horrid and abominable lyes, not to be credited, because the Authors only invented them, to promote their own base ends and wretched interests.