‘1. He judgeth by the unusualnes of the place where he findeth the teats in or on their bodies, being farre distant from any usuall place, from whence such naturall markes proceed; as, if a witch plead the markes found are Emerods, if I finde them on the back bone, shall I assent with him? Knowing they are not neere that veine, and so, others, by child-bearing, when it may be, they are in the contrary part? ‘2. They are most commonly insensible, and feele neither pin, needle, aule, &c, thrust through them. ‘3. The often variations and mutations of these marks into severall formes, confirmes this matter; as, if a Witch hear a month or two before that the _Witch-finder_, (as they call him) is comming, they will, and have, put out their Imps to others to suckle them, even to their owne young and tender children; these upon search are found to have dry skinnes and filmes only, and be close to the flesh. Keepe her 24 houres with a diligent eye, that none of her Spirits come in any visible shape to suck her; the women have seen, the next day after, her Teats extended to their former filling strength, full of corruption, ready to burst; and, leaving her alone then one quarter of an houre, and let the women go up againe, and shee will have them drawn, by her Imps, close againe: _Probatum est_.’ This seems hard enough upon the poor friendless witch, but it is nothing to what Scot writes on the subject, giving his authorities, which, at the time he wrote, on behalf of the witch, was good law. As it is a very curious bit of history, and one, as far as I know, that has never been reproduced, I make a long extract bearing thereon: