“The sixth word is ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, which our English translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the Septuagint Ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him that has this familiar spirit: and therefore ‏שואל אוב‎ _shoel obh_, I conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood) is to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel of his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others. The reason of the name of ‏אוב‎ _obh_, it is likely was taken first from that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation to that circumstance, _OBH_ signifies as much as _pytho_; as _pytho_ also, though at first it took its name from the _pythii vates_, signifies no more than _spiritum divinationis_, in general, a spirit that tells hidden things, or things to come. And _OBH_ and _pytho_ also agree in this, that they both signify either the divinatory spirit itself, or the party that has that spirit. But here in ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, it being rendered by the Septuagint Ἐγγαςείμυθος, _OBH_ is necessarily understood of the spirit itself, as _pytho_ is, Acts xvi. 16, if you read πνεῦμα πύδωνα, with Isaac Casaubon; but if πύθωνος, it may be understood either way. Of this πνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in that place, that ‘Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he came out at the same hour;’ which signifies as plainly as any thing can be signified, that this _pytho_ or spirit of divination, that this _OBH_ was in her: for nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the sack, as the Spanish proverb has it; nor could this _pytho_ come out of her unless it was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at the profane impudence of J. Webster, that makes this _pytho_ in the maid there mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that maid than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would have understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical conceit he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most unjust to Beza, so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous against the spirit of Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them both such fools as to believe that there was a spirit or divining devil in the maid, when according to him there is no such thing. Can any thing be more frantic or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no spirit or devil in the damsel? But what will this profane shuffler stick to do in a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he is sworn advocate, and resolved patron right or wrong?