[87] Mr. Cook was one of the very distinguished Men of the Period under Notice. He wrote his Name Cooke. I need only refer to Allen's Biographical Dictionary and the Hist. and Antiq's of Boston for an Account of him. He agreed with Mr. Calef about the New Charter.
[88] She was a Daughter, I suppose, of Jonathan Walcut, by Wife Mary, Daughter of John Sibley. Walcut was an early Salem Family, some of whom went to Rhode Island, where Descendants are yet found.
[89] Tarball and Nurse are the same mentioned at Note [80]. The others will be noticed onward, in the Account of the Trials.
PART IV.
A Letter of a Gentleman[90] endeavouring to prove the received Opinions about Witchcraft.
SIR,
I Told you, I had some thoughts concerning Witchcraft, and an Intention of conferring with the Gentleman,[91] who has published several Treatises about Witchcraft, and persons afflicted by them, lately here in New-England; but since you have put those three Books into my hands, I find myself engaged in a very hard Province, to give you my opinion of them. I plainly foresee, that should this scribling of mine come to [65] publick view, it would displease all Parties, but that is the least; moreover it is so far out of my Road to set my thoughts to consider a matter on every side, which in itself is so abstruce, and every step I advance therein, if I miss truth (which is a narrow and undivided line) I must tumble down headlong into the Gulph of dangerous error; yet notwithstanding I have forced myself to send these few lines, if so be I may clear to you a truth, you now seem to be offended at, because of the ill consequences, which (you think) lately have and again may be drawn from it, by the ill conduct of some Men. I am not ignorant that the pious frauds of the Ancient, and the inbred fire (I do not call it pride) of many of our Modern Divines have precipitated them to propagate, and maintain truth as well as falsehood, in such an unfair manner, as has given advantage to the Enemy, to suspect the whole Doctrine, these Men have profest to be nothing but a meer trick. But it is certain, that as no lover of truth will justifie an Illegitimate Corollary, tho drawn from a true Proposition; so neither will he reject a truth, because some or many Men take unfair mediums to prove it, or draw false consequences from it: The many Heresies among Christians, must not give a mortal wound to the Essence of the Christian Religion; neither must any one Christian Doctrine be exterminated, because Evil Men make use of it, as a Cloak to cover their own self-ends; particularly, because some men perhaps among all sorts of Christians, have under pretence of Witchcraft coloured their own Malice, Pride and Popularity; we must not therefore conclude (first) that there are no Witches (2.) or that Witches cannot be Convicted by such clear and undeniable proof, as the Law of God requires in the case of Death (3.) Or that a Witch so Convicted ought not to be put to death. 1. That there are Witches is manfest from the precept of Moses, Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live. Exod. xxii. 18. for it is certain God would not have given a vain and unintelligible Law, as this must be of putting Witches to death, if there are no Witches. But you object that this doth not answer our Case, for we have formed another Idea of Witches than what can be gathered from Scriptures; you quote four places, viz. Deut. xiii. Mat. xxiv. Acts xiii. 2. Tim. iii. from all which you infer that Witchcraft is a maligning and oppugning the Word, Works and Worship of God; and by an extraordinary sign, seeking to seduce any from it, and this you readily grant. But then you say, What is this to Witches now a days? who are said to have made an explicit Covenant with the Devil, and to be impowered by him, to the doing of things strange in themselves, and besides their natural course. This you say does not follow, and herein indeed consists the whole Controversie. Therefore it is necessary, that first of all we clear this point, laying aside those prejudices we may have from the fatal application of this Doctrine, [66] to some (who were in your judgment) really at least in Law, and before Men Innocent. In a word, we are seeking after truth, and truth shall and will be truth, in spite of Men and Devils. I do not repeat this caution to forestall you, to believe the Doctrine of Witchcraft, as it is above defined, without inquiring into the reason and truth of it; only I desire you to enquire into it, as a thing doubtful. For no Man can be certain of a Negative, unless either the Affirmative imply a contradiction, or he can prove it by certain testimony, to neither of which you pretend; only you alledge it cannot be proved by Scripture, i. e. you cannot prove it, nor have seen it proved by any other you have read on that Subject. I am not so vain as to think I can do better than the learned Authors you have consulted with (though I know not what they have done, for I had no other Book but the Bible, to make use of on this occasion;) but because I am satisfied myself, I am willing to communicate my Reasons, which I divide into Three heads. 1. The appearance of Angels. 2. The nature of Possession. 3 and the scripture notion of Witchcraft. 1. Good Angels did appear to Abraham, and did eat, Gen. xv. it seems he wash'd their Feet, it is certain he saw and heard them, therefore there is no impossibility in Angels being conversant with men. God is true, and whatever is contained in Sacred Writ is true; if we poor shallow Mortals do not comprehend the manner how, that argues only our weakness and ignorance in this dark Prison of Flesh, wherein we are inclosed, during our abode in this vale of misery, but doth not in the least infringe the verity of the Scripture; it is sufficient that we undoubtedly know they have appeared unto Men in bodily shape, and done their Errand they were sent on from God. Now if good Angels have appeared, why may not bad? Surely the Devils, because fallen and Evil, have not therefore lost the Nature of Angels, neither is there any contradiction in their appearing in a bodily shape, now after any more than before their Fall. But you will say you must allow of the appearances of Good Angels, because of the Scripture testimony; but not of bad, seeing there is no place of Scripture that clearly proves it. Mat. 4. The words in the Gospel do as plainly signifie the Devils outward appearance to our Saviour, when he was tempted, as can be express'd, and when the tempter came to him he said—but he answered—the same form St. Luke useth to signifie the appearance of Moses and Elias, in the transfiguration, And behold there talked with him two men: for what follows, ver. 31, who appeared is used to signifie (not their appearance, but) the manner of their appearance in great Glory. But you'l urge that 'tis very easie to be understood, that Moses and Elias did appear, because they had human bodies; but that it is unintelligible to you, how the Devil being a Spirit can appear, a Spirit, i. e. a substance void of all dimensions; therefore the words in [67] the History must not be taken in a literal Sense. Do not mistake; tho some Philosophers are of opinion (which whether true or false, is all one to our present Argument) that a Spirits substance is extended, and hath besides length, breadth and depth, a fourth dimension, viz. essential spissitude; yet the same do not say, that pure substance is perceptible by our bodily senses; on the contrary, they tell us, that Spirits are cloathed with vehicles, i. e. they are united to certain portions of matter, which they inform, move and actuate. Now this we must not reject as impossible, because we cannot comprehend the formal reason, how a Spirit acts upon matter: For who can give the Reason, that upon the Volition of the human Soul, the Hand should be lifted up, or any ways moved? for to say the Contraction of the Muscles is the Mechanick cause of voluntary motion, is not to solve the Question which recurs, why upon Volition should that Contraction ensue which causes that motion? all that I know the wisest Man ever said upon this head, is, that it is the will of the Creator; who hath ordered such a species of thinking Creatures, by a Catholick Law to be united to such portions of matter, so and so disposed, or, if you will in the vulgar Phrase, to Organiz'd bodies, and that there should be between them and the several bodies, they are united to, a mutual re-action and passion: Now you see how little we know of the reason, of that which is most near to us, and most certain, viz. The Souls informing the Body, yet you would think it a bad Argument, if one should, as some have done, include from this our Ignorance, that there was nothing in us but matter, it is no otherways to deny a Spirits acting a Vehicle. The plainest and most certain things when denied are hardest to be proved, therefore the Axiom saith well, contra principa, &c. There are some certain truths which are rather to be explained to young beginners than proved, upon which yet all Science is built, as every whole is more than his part, and of this sort I take these two following. 1. That there are two substances, Corpus & Mens, Body and Spirit, altogether different, for the Ideas we have of them are quite distinct. 2. That a Spirit can Actuate, Animate, or inform a certain portion of matter, and be united to it: from whence it is very evident, that the Devil united to a portion of matter (which hereafter I'll call a Vehicle) may fall under the cognizance of our Senses, and be conversant with us in a bodily shape. Where then is the reason or need to run to a Metaphorical, and forced Interpretation, when the words are so plain, and the literal sense implieth no contradiction, nor any greater difficulty than (as has been said) what ariseth from the Union of the Soul and Body, which is most certain. Now after all to say, God will not permit the Devil so to appear, is to beg the question without saying any thing to the preceeding Argument, and it is against the sense of almost all mankind; [68] for in all Ages, and all places there have been many Witnesses of the appearances of Dæmons, all of whom that taught any thing contrary to the right Worship of the true God, were certainly evil ones: and it were most presumptuous, barely to assert that all these witnesses were always deceived, and it is impossible they could all agree to deceive. 2. We come to consider the nature of Possession. The Man possest, Luk. viii. 27. had a Power more than Natural, for he break the bands, which he could not have done by his own strength: Now from whom had he this Power? The Scripture saith, he had Devils along time, and oftentimes it had caught him, &c. he was kept bound with Chains and in Fetters, and he break the bands, and was driven of the Devil into the Wilderness; this Power then was immediately from the Devil, and whatsoever possessed persons does, or suffers things beyond his natural power; he is inabled by the Dæmon so to do: or to speak more properly, it is the Dæemon who acteth the same, as is plain from St. Mark's Relation of this passage, v. 5. 2. A Man with an unclean Spirit, v. 3. 2. and no Man could bind him, no, not with Chains, 6. v. but when he saw Jesus afar off he ran and worshiped him, and the same He. v. 7. said I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not, and v. 10. My name is Legion, for we are many, v. 11. and he besought him much, that he would not send them away out of the Countrey: it is manifest from hence, that it was not the poor Man who was possest, but the Devils who possessed him, by whom the Chains had been pluck'd asunder, and the Fetters broken in pieces; now here is Divine testimony, that the Devils have actuated a Humane body to the doing of things beyond the Natural strength of that Body, as it was simply united to its humane Soul; how much more then can the Devil actuate any other proportion of simple Matter, Earth, Air, Fire or Water; and make it a fit organ for himself to act in.
But enough of this already, let us rather enquire how the Devil enters into the body of the possestt, to move it at his pleasure; this I think he cannot do as a meer Spirit, or by any never so strict Union with the Humane Soul, for in that case he is only a tempter or seducer; and nothing above humane strength can be done: But here there being something performed (the bonds broken) by a force which could not proceed from humane strength, it necessarily follows that the Devils entered into the possest, otherways qualified than as a meer Spirit, he did not enter without some portion of matter, to which he was united by the Intermedium whereof he acted upon and actuated the humane body. Again if it is said that the Devil entered as a meer Spirit, and immediately aced upon and moved that body; it follows the Devil hath a Vehicle, a certain portion of matter (that Body) to actuate and dispose of at will; which is absurd. 1. Because it asserts what it seems to deny, viz. the Devils having a Vehicle to act immediately upon, and to be united to a portion of matter (as [69] has been said before) is the same thing. 2. It fights against the Catholick Law of the Union of Soul and Body, by which the Omnipotent hath ordained the voluntary motion of a humane body to depend upon the Will of its humane Soul, and those that are not voluntary to proceed either from its own Mechanison, or from material force, hence we may certainly conclude, that it is by the Intervening of the Devils Vehicle, that he enters into the Body of the possest. But what if you and I cannot agree about this Notion of Possession, must we therefore reject the truth itself, and run to a far fetched and intolerable sense of the words: No, our opinions do not alter the Nature of things, it is certain there were persons possest, and it is as certain that the Devil enteed into them, either with or without a Vehicle, it is all one which part of the contradiction you take, the consequence is the same, viz.