“As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them, they signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word wizzard, it is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose derived adjective might be _wittigh_ or _wittich_, and by contraction afterwards witch; as the noun wit is from the verb _to weet_, which is, to know. So that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latin word _saga_, according to that of Festus, _Sagæ dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt_. Thus in general: but use questionless had appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and knowledge, as was out of the common road, or extraordinary. Nor did this peculiarity imply in it any unlawfulness. But there was after a further restriction and most proper of all, and in which alone now-a-days the words _witch_ and _wizzard_ are used. And that is, for one that has the knowledge or skill of doing or telling things in an extraordinary way, and that in virtue of either an express or implicit sociation or confederacy with some evil spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of a _witch_ or _wizzard_, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such, _et vice versâ_. But to prove or defend that there neither are, nor ever were any such, is, as I said, the main scope of Webster’s book: in order to which, he endeavours in his sixth and eighth chapters to evacuate all the testimonies of Scripture; which how weakly and impertinently he has done, I shall now shew with all possible brevity and perspicuity.