things he that shall affirm to be mere fiction and delusion, must thereby with exceeding immodesty and rudeness charge the world with extreme both vanity and malignity; many, if not all, worthy historians, of much inconsiderateness or fraud; most lawgivers, of great silliness and rashness; most judicatories, of high stupidity or cruelty; a vast number of witnesses, of the greatest malice or madness; all which concurred to assert these matters of fact.

"It is true, no question, but there have been many vain pretences, many false reports, many unjust accusations, and some undue decisions concerning these matters; that the vulgar sort is apt enough to be abused about them; that even intelligent and considerate men may at a distance in regard to some of them be imposed upon; but, as there would be no false gems obtruded, if there were no true ones found in nature; as no counterfeit coin would appear, were there no true one current; so neither can we well suppose that a confidence in some to feign, or a readiness in most to believe, stories of this kind could arise, or should subsist, without some real ground, or without such things having in gross somewhat of truth and reality. However, that the wiser and more refined sort of men, highest in parts and improvements both from study and experience, (indeed the flower of every commonwealth; statesmen, lawgivers, judges, and priests,) upon so many occasions of great importance, after most deliberate scanning such pretences and reports, should so often suffer themselves to be deluded, to the extreme injury of particular persons concerned, to the common abusing of mankind, to the hazard of their own reputation in point of wisdom and honesty, seems nowise reasonable to conceive. In likelihood rather the whole kind of all these things, were it altogether vain and groundless, would upon so frequent and so mature discussions have appeared to be so, and would consequently long since have been disowned, exploded, and thrust out of the world; for, as upon this occasion it is said in Tully, "Time wipeth out groundless conceits, but confirms that which is founded in nature, and real.'

"Now if the truth and reality of these things, (all or any of them,) inferring the existence of powers invisible, at least inferior ones, though much superior to us in all sort of ability, be admitted, it will at least (as removing the

chief obstacles of incredulity) confer much to the belief of that supreme Divinity, which our Discourse strives to maintain.38

39

Dr. George Hickes, of Thesaurus fame, was one of the most eminent scholars of his time. He was also a Non-juror, and titular Bishop of Thetford. In other words, he was not a Puritan. Yet in 1678 Hickes published an account of the infamous Major Weir, the most celebrated of all Scottish wizards, which betrays no skepticism on the cardinal points of sorcery. There is also an extremely interesting letter from the Doctor to Mr. Pepys, dated June 19, 1700, which indicates a belief in witchcraft and second sight. The most curious part of this letter, however, deals with Elf Arrows. "I have another strange story," writes Dr. Hickes, "but very well attested, of an Elf arrow, that was shot at a venerable Irish Bishop by an Evil Spirit in a terrible noise, louder than thunder, which shaked the house where the Bishop was; but this I reserve for his son to tell you, who is one of the deprived Irish Clergymen, and very well known, as by other excellent pieces, so by his late book, entitled, 'The Snake in the Grass.' "40 What would the critics say if this passage were found in a work of Cotton Mather's?

Finally, it is not amiss to remember that the tolerant, moderate, and scholarly John Evelyn, whom nobody will accuse of being a Puritan, made the following entry in his Diary under February 3d, 1692-3:-"Unheard-of stories of the universal increase of Witches in New England; men, women and children devoting themselves to the devil, so as to threaten the subversion of the government. At the same time there was a conspiracy amongst the negroes in Barbadoes to murder all their masters, discovered by overhearing a discourse of two of the slaves, and so preventing the execution of the designe. There is no indication

38 Theological Works, ed. 1830, IV, 480-482.

39

In his Ravillac Redivivus, reprinted in the Somers Tracts, 2d ed., VIII, 510 ff. (see especially pp. 546 ff.). Weir, who was unquestionably insane, was executed in 1670.

40 Diary and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, London, 1885, IV, 275. On elfarrows cf. Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in Scotland, I, ii, 192, 198; III, 607, 609, 615; W. Henderson, Notes on the Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties, 1879, pp. 185 ff.

that Evelyn regarded either of these conspiracies as less possible of occurrence than the other.41

Most of these passages are sufficiently well known, and their significance in the abstract is cheerfully granted, I suppose, by everybody. But the cumulative effect of so much testimony from non-Puritans is, I fear, now and then disregarded or overlooked by writers who concern. themselves principally with the annals of New England. Yet the bearing of the evidence is plain enough. The Salem outbreak was not due to Puritanism; it is not assignable to any peculiar temper on the part of our New England ancestors; it is no sign of exceptional bigotry or abnormal superstition. Our forefathers believed in witchcraft, not because they were Puritans, not because they were Colonials, not because they were New Englanders,-but because they were men of their time. They shared the feelings and beliefs of the best hearts and wisest heads of the seventeenth century. What more can be asked of them?42

I am well aware that there are a few distinguished names that are always entered on the other side of the account, and some of them we must now consider. It would be unpardonable to detract in any maner from the dearbought fame of such forerunners of a better dispensation. But we must not forget that they were forerunners. They occupy a much more conspicuous place in modern books than they occupied in the minds of their contemporaries. Further, if we listen closely to the words of these voices in the wilderness, we shall find that they do not sound in unison, and that their testimony is not in all cases precisely what

41 Evelyn may have derived his information from Sir William Phips's letter to the home government (Oct. 14, 1692), as Dr. G. H. Moore suggests (Final Notes on Witchcraft in Massachusetts, N. Y., 1885, p. 66). For the letter see Goodell, Essex Institute Collections, 2d Series, I, ii, 86 ff. Phips's second letter (Feb. 21, 1692-3, to the Earl of Nottingham) is printed by Moore, pp. 90 ff.

42 The remark, sometimes heard, that Calvinism was especially responsible for witch trials is a loose assertion which has to reckon with the fact that the last burning for witchcraft at Geneva took place in 1652 (see Paul Ladame, Procès criminel de la dernière Sorcière brulée à Genève, Paris, 1888).

43 Compare Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy, Part I, section 2, member 1, subsection 3: "Many deny Witches at all, or if there be any, they can doe no harme: of this opinion is Wierus, lib. 3. cap. 53, de præstig. dæm. Austin Lerchemer, a Dutch writer, Biarmanus, Ewichius, Euwaldus, our countryman Scot. on the contrary are most Lawyers, Diuines, Physitians, Philosophers."

but

we should infer from the loose statements often made about them.

Johann Wier, or Weyer (1515-1588), deserves all the honor he has ever received. He devoted years to the study of demonology, and brought his great learning, and his vast experience as a physician, to bear on the elucidation of the whole matter. He held that many of the performances generally ascribed to devils and witches were impossible, and that the witches themselves were deluded. But there is another side to the picture. Wier's book is crammed full of what we should now-a-days regard as the grossest superstition. He credited Satan and his attendant demons with extensive powers. He believed that the fits of the so-called bewitched persons were due in large part to demoniacal possession or obsession, and that the witches. themselves, though innocent of what was alleged against them, were in many cases under the influence of the devil, who made them think that they had entered into infernal compacts, and ridden through the air on broomsticks, and killed their neighbors' pigs, and caused disease or death by occult means. And further, he was convinced that such persons as Faust, whom he called magi, were acquainted with strange and damnable arts, and that they were worthy of death and their books of the fire. One example may serve to show the world-wide difference between Wier's mental attitude and our own.

One of the best known symptoms of bewitchment was the vomiting of bones, nails, needles, balls of wool, bunches of hair, and other things, some of which were so large that they could not have passed through the throat by any natural means.45 Such phenomena, Wier tells us, he had himself seen. How were they to be explained? Easily, according to Wier's general theory. Such articles, he says,

45.

44 Wier's great work, De Praestigiis Dæmonum, was published in 1563, and was afterwards much enlarged. It went through many editions.

45 See the extraordinary list in William Drage, Daimonomageia. A Small Treatise of Sicknesses and Diseases from Witchcraft, and Supernatural Causes, 1665. Webster considers this subject at length in Chap. xii of his Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 1677, with a full discussion of van Helmont's views. Cf. Henry More, Antidote against Atheism, Chaps. 4-5 (Philosophical Writings, 2d ed., 1662, pp. 97 ff.).

are put into the patient's mouth by the devil, one after another, as fast as they come out. We cannot see him do this,—either because he acts so rapidly that his motions are invisible, or because he fascinates our sight, or because he darkens our eyes, perhaps by interposing between them and the patient some aërial body.46

The instability of Wier's position should not be brought against him as a reproach, since he was far in advance of his contemporaries, and since his arguments against the witch dogma are the foundation of all subsequent skepticism on the subject.47 Besides, it is certain that such a thoroughgoing denial of the devil's power as Bekker made a century later would have utterly discredited Wier's book and might even have prevented it from being published at all.48 Yet, when all is said and done, it must be admitted that Wier's doctrines have a half-hearted appearance, and that they seemed to most seventeenth-century scholars to labor under a gross inconsistency. This inconsistency was emphasized by Meric Casaubon. "As for them," "writes Dr. Casaubon, "who allow and acknowledge supernatural operations by Devils and Spirits, as Wierius; who tells as many strange stories of them, and as incredible, as are to be found in any book; but stick at the business of Witches only, whom they would not have thought the Authors of those mischiefs, that are usually laid to their charge, but the Devil only; though this opinion may seem to some, to have more of charity, than Incredulity; yet the contrary will easily appear to them, that shall look into it more carefully." And Casaubon dwells upon the fact that Wier grants "no small part of what we drive at, when he doth acknowledge supernatural operations, by Devils and Spirits."49 Indeed, the apparent contradiction in Wier's theories may also excuse

46 "Ea dæmonis subtilitate uelocitateque imperceptibili, ori ingesta, nostris ad hæc oculis uel celeritate eius uictis, uel fascino delusis, uel interiecto corpore aereo aut aliter motis eo intus uel foris uel utrinque humoribus aut spiritu caligantibus." De Præstigiis Dæmonum (Basileæ, 1568), iv, 2, pp. 352-353.

47 Even Bekker (see p. 35, below), who approaches the subject from the philosophical direction, and whose logical process is different from Wier's, is greatly indebted to him.

48 Compare the fate of Bekker in 1692 (p. 39).

49

A Treatise proving Spirits, Witches and Supernatural Operations, 1672, p. 35.