The displaying of supposed witchcraft : $b Wherein is affirmed that there are many sorts of deceivers and impostors, and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy and fancy. But that there is a corporeal league made betwixt the devil and the witch, or that he sucks on the witches body, has carnal copulation, or that witches are turned into cats, dogs, raise tempests, or the like, is utterly denied and disproved. Wherein also is handled, the existence of angels and spirits, the truth Webster, John
Religion
The displaying of supposed witchcraft : $b Wherein is affirmed that there are many sorts of deceivers and impostors, and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy and fancy. But that there is a corporeal league made betwixt the devil and the witch, or that he sucks on the witches body, has carnal copulation, or that witches are turned into cats, dogs, raise tempests, or the like, is utterly denied and disproved. Wherein also is handled, the existence of angels and spirits, the truth
Webster, John
Witchcraft; Witchcraft -- Early works to 1800
therefore less subject to such unconceiveable affections; and however,
it can be no wayes known to our faculties or cognitive powers, that they
have any such specifical property or affection. 3. As it is not any way
manifest to any of our senses, nor can be proved by any sound deductions
of reason, so it cannot be manifested to be any innate notion shining
from the Intellect it self, and we ought not to take adventitious ones
instead of those that are innate, nor fictitious ones for either, but to
make a due distinction of each of them one from another. 4. Neither is
indiscerpibility a proper difference of a spiritual substance from a
corporeal one, because the visible species of things do in the air
intersect one another, and suffer not discerpibility: and that these are
bodies is manifest, because they affect the senses; and therefore that
which is a property of some bodies cannot be the proper difference to
distinguish a spirit from a body. 5. This is only an arbitrary and
feigned supposition, and cannot be proved either by the testimony of any
of the senses, by sound reason, or innate notions; and what is or cannot
be proved by some of these (according to his own position) ought to be
rejected. And therefore as indiscerpibility is no proper difference of a
spirit from a body, no more is penetrability, which can no more be in a
spiritual substance, than either in discreet quantity one can be two, or
two one, or in continuate quantity one inch can be two, or two can
become one. D^r _Glisson_ from his much admired _Suarius_ the great
Weaver of fruitless Cobwebs, hath devised another difference of spirit
from body which he thus layeth down, as we give it in this English. “I
assign (he saith) a twofold difference betwixt the substance of matter
and that of spirits. The first is taken from the substantial (_à
substantiali materiæ mole_) heap or weight of the matter. For I (he
saith) besides the actual and accidental extension, do attribute to the
matter this substantial heap or weight which is denied to spirits. But
the sign of this heap or weight is, that if the matter in the same space
be duplicated, triplicated, or centuplicated, that it will be made more
dense twofold, threefold, or an hundred fold. And concludeth thus: I
answer (he saith) that matter and spirit in this do agree betwixt
themselves, that they both are finite, and from thence that they have
this common, that neither of them can reduce themselves into a
littleness that is infinite, or into an infinite magnitude. Therefore
the difference betwixt them doth not consist in this; but in this, that
a spirit whether it be contracted or dilated, is not made more dense or
rare; but on the contrary, matter, whether it be contracted or expanded,
is made more dense, or more rare.” To which we return this responsion.
1. It is usual with men, when by their wills and fancies they would
maintain an opinion that is weak and groundless, finding they cannot
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account