A defence of witchcraft belief

A sixteenth-century response to Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft

Eric Pudney

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781526147752
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

This is the first published edition of a fascinating manuscript on witchcraft in the collection of the British Library, written by an unknown sixteenth-century scholar. Responding to a pre-publication draft of Reginald Scot's sceptical Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), the treatise represents the most detailed defence of witchcraft belief to be written in the early modern period in England. It highlights in detail the scriptural and theological justifications for a belief in witches, covering ground that may well have been considered too sensitive for print publications and presenting learned arguments not found in any other contemporary English work. Consequently, it offers a unique insight into elite witchcraft belief dating from the very beginning of the English witchcraft debate. This edition, which includes a comprehensive analytical introduction, presents the treatise with modernised spelling and relevant excerpts from Scot's book.

The treatise

A defence of witchcraft belief

[f. 57r] Reason 5

Neither hath God given remedies to sicknes or greefes, by words or charmes, but by hearbs and medicines; which he himselfe hath created upon earth, and given men knowledge of the same; that he might be glorified, for that therewith he dooth vouchsafe that the maladies of men and cattell should be cured, &c. And if there be no affliction nor calamitie, but is brought to passe by him, then let us defie the divell, renounce all his works, and not so much as once thinke or dreame upon this supernaturall power of witches; neither let us prosecute them with such despight, whome our fansie condemneth, and our reason acquiteth: our evidence against them consisting in impossibilities, our proofes in unwritten verities, and our whole proceedings in doubts and difficulties. (Scot, Epistle to the readers)

Though there be no affliction nor calamity but it is bro{ught} to pass by the Lord, yet may we think upon the supernatural power of witches and impute many things thereunto, because it may please God (who at his pleasure useth as well the evil as the good for his instruments to pla{gue}, punish, and afflict) by witches and such like to do s{uch} supernatural things upon those whom he will have p{uni}shed or afflicted, even as well as it pleased him to {use} the ministry of their master the devil in afflicting Job, as shall be further proved when I come to the answering your discourse upon Job, and as he used the ministry of {the} man in whom an evil spirit was in punishing the sons of Sceva, &c.¹

Reason 6

[See excerpt to reason 5 above]

The evidence against witches consisting upon impossibilities to natural wit and reason is not material to take away the strange effects imputed to them. For why may not they through Satan (God so giving leave) work wicked signs and wonders above reason and nature as well as the false Christ, false prophets, and Antichrist of whom mention is made (as before I have showed) that they should show great signs, wonders, and power &c. And as for the proofs against witches which you say consisteth in unwritten verities: if by unwritten verities you mean all that is not written in the scriptures, it may be said how could the things in these days ascribed to witches be mentioned in the scriptures, they being things done and practised so long since the scriptures were written? But if you will not reject the writings of the most sort, yea of all the most learned and godly writers in all times and ages as unwritten verities, then have you better proof {…} of their doings to be very strange and beyond reason as {…} self will not deny. Howbeit my meaning is not {…} justify the evidence or proof of Malleus Mall. or of Bodin or such like fabulous and papistical writers, neither will I justify all to be true which is testified of witches by the most learned and godly writers, though I do credit much more thereof than you do, if it were but in this one respect: that I think it much more like and probable for you alone to be deceived in this case or in any other than for all the most learned, wise, and godly of all times and ages.

Reason 7

I have read in the scriptures, that God maketh the blustering tempests and whirlewinds … But little thinke our witchmongers, that the Lord commandeth the clouds above, or openeth the doores of heaven, as David affirmeth; or that the Lord goeth forth in the tempests and stormes, as the Prophet Nahum reporteth: but rather that witches and conjurers are then about their businesse. (Scot, 1.1)

Your scriptures alleged to prove that God is the raiser up of rain, hail, tempests, &c is not of force to prove these things not to be done by witches or devils unless you could prove that God doth these things always immediately and never by means or second causes which I d{o} suppose you cannot prove. And the story of Job proveth [f. 57v] the contrary; also hereof is proved in the Apocalypse by that which is there spoken of the beast (whereby some understand Antichrist, the pope) which should do great wonders insomuch as he should make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men.²

Reason 8

The Martionists acknowledged one God the authour of good things, and another the ordeiner of evill: but these make the divell a whole god, to create things of nothing, to knowe mens cogitations, and to doo that which God never did; as, to transubstantiate men into beasts, &c. (Scot, 1.1)

To impute that unto witch or devil which God never did is I suppose no absurdity but great piety. Therefore though God never did transubstantiate a man into a beast, it would not hereof follow but that devils or witches might do it as well as they do other wicked things and miracles which God doth not otherwise than by allowing them power to do the same. But as touching the manner how devils and witches do or may transubstantiate, as it is held of the best sort of writers is, as I think, no great matter to be granted. For they hold not that there is any true but only a fantastical and illuding transubstantiating of one thing into another and this, you confess, may be done by natural magic, for in your entreating thereupon you say a man may thereby make a man seem to have the head of an ass, a horse, &c.³ Yea, you confess a true transubstantiating of wood into stones by the quality of certain waters here in England, and that coral of herbs in the sea become stones being taken thence.⁴ And why then cannot he that gave this force to these insensible things give (if he please) the like force of transubstantiating things from that they were into things which before they were not to witches or devils? Whether God did ever transubstantiate a man into beast it shall be considered after in the obje{ction} of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar by you spok{en} of, and in the mean season I would not have you to think that I do believe that devils or witches do o{r} have done such transubstantiatings as are true and without illusion, though I say it lieth in God to give them such power, as shall be further se{en} afterwards.⁵

[f. 58r] Reason 9

But if all the divels in hell were dead, and all the witches in England burnt or hanged; I warrant you we should not faile to have raine, haile and tempests, as now we have. (Scot, 1.1)

It is to be confessed that we should not fail to have rain, hail, and tempests though there were neither devil nor witch. For the Lord of hosts that hath all creatures at his commandment to do his will is not tied to work the same more by one creature than by another, yea he is tied to no creature or second means at all but may do what pleaseth him immediately and without all means. But hereof to gather that God doth not send sometimes the said things by the devil or by witches, because he would and could send though they were not existent, is in my opinion an argument of no more validity than if a man would say that Christ’s disciples did not with a loud voice praise God (as is reported by St Luke) because it is there said to the Pharisees (repining at the praising of God) that if they should hold their peace the stones would cry.⁶

Reason 10

I am also well assured, that if all the old women in the world were witches; and all the priests, conjurers: we should not have a drop of raine, nor a blast of wind the more or the lesse for them. (Scot, 1.1)

The 10th reason is answered in the answer of the 37th reason, where it is showed that neither witch nor devil hath any power to do these or other things imputed unto them but of God, and therefore no marvel though it lie not in them at their pleasure to send a drop of rain more or less, &c. Neither do I think any man to be so senseless as to say they can at their pleasing send rain or tempest &c, for then would it not be confessed (as you say it is by Bodin) that not two of their witchings amongst an 100 take effect: 18 Reas.⁷

Reason 11

The wind of the Lord, and not the wind of witches, shall destroie the treasures of their plesant vessels, and drie up the fountaines; saith Oseas. (Scot, 1.1)

That which is done by the Lord’s will and appointment, whether it be done by witch or devil, may well be said to be done by the word of the Lord; that is to say by his power and commandment, which also is more at large showed in the answer of the 3 reason, and so is the place of Hosea to be answered.⁸

Reason 12

The Imperiall lawe (saith Brentius) condemneth them to death that trouble and infect the aire: but I affirme (saith he) that it is neither in the power of witch not divell so to doo, but in God onelie. Though (besides Bodin, and all the popish writers in generall) it please Danaeus, Hyperius, Hemingius, Erastus, &c. to conclude otherwise … S. Augustine saith … We must not thinke that these visible things are at the commandement of the angels that fell, but are obedient to the onelie God. (Scot, 1.1)

To your 12 reason there needeth no other answer than is made to the former reason, saving that you say that Danaeus, Hyperius, and Hemmingus do other{wise} conclude of the power of witches than Brentius doth who attributeth all to the power of God, to the which I answer that as touching this point I dare wager with you a gallon of wine that Brentius and the other three do agree in one, all attributing the like power unto God and the like unto witches if they be rightly understood and construed. And now whereas you begin by the authority of men to confirm and strengthen your [f. 58v] part (sith you have in your book confessed that all sort of writers, even of the best credit, are against you) it may be said that you must not look to advantage yourself by any human authorities, except you would have the best writers to give place to others of less credit.⁹ But I do not purpose thus to cut off the answering of all your human authorities, for as I shall see cause I will answer them in other sort. But as for the authority of Brentius and St August here alleged, they are not as I think gainsaid by any, neither do they anything at all abridge the power of witches &c otherwise than every man will confess, so far as I know to the contrary.

Reason 13

Finallie, if witches could accomplish these things; what needed it seeme so strange to the people, when Christ by miracle commanded both seas and winds, &c. (Scot, 1.1)

It might as well be demanded why many of those miracles which Moses did in Egypt should seem strange sith the sorcerers and enchanter[s] of Pharaoh did the like, yea if there be (as you write) stones that turn aside tempests, provoke rain, darken the sun, and preserveth from lightning, and if there be herbs or stones that restoreth eyes or sight to the swallows that have their eyes picked out with instruments and that restore dragons and men (being dead) unto life, and finally if there be in some men’s sides force to make all doors to fly open, why then should it seem strange that Christ stilled tempests, giveth rain, darkened the sun at his death, restored the blind to their sight or the dead to life, or finally that he came in to his Apostles the doors being shut and none in the house opening them unto him?¹⁰ If it be answered that these stones, herbs, &c have the said force and virtues from God, so you see by the premises it will be said that whatsoever strange effect shall be said to have been done by witches that they did it not by their own force and power, but by that force and power which it pleased God to allow unto them either for the trial of his children, or for the punishment of the wicked, or for some other good and just respect best known to his divine majesty.

Reason 14

But the world is now so bewitched and over-run with this fond error, that even where a man shuld seeke comfort and counsell, there shall hee be sent (in case of necessitie) from God to the divell; and from the Physician, to the coosening witch, who will not sticke to take upon hir, by wordes to heale the lame (which was proper onelie to Christ; and to them whom he assisted with his divine power) yea, with hir familiar & charmes she will take upon hir to cure the blind: though in the tenth of S. Johns Gospell it be written, that the divell cannot open the eies of the blind. (Scot, 1.2)

It is not so proper to Christ to heal the lame or to do any other miracles but that he imparteth this property and power to others, else could not the prophets or Apostles have healed the lame or done any miracle. And that the power to do miracles is given as well to the wicked as to the godly the scriptures quoted in the 2 Reason, besides many other, do testify.¹¹ Therefore the allegation [f. 59r] of this property in Christ may not serve your turn unless you prove that which is required of you in my answer to your 7th reason, vz. that Christ doth all miracles immediately by himself and never by means, &c. And as touching your place in the 10 of John where you say it is written that it is not in the devil to open the eyes of the blind, I find not any such assertion there, but only a question propounded thereof by some of the Jews, saying ‘can the devil open the eyes of the blind?’¹² But admit this had been no question but a plain...