troduction
of the art of printing partly dissipated the illusion. It has been
remarked, therefore, that the existence of the parent stock of the
subject more immediately under our consideration, witchcraft, may be
traced to a very remote period indeed. It is, however, needless to enter
into any remarks on those witches mentioned in the Scriptures. The
earliest dabbler of the _genus_, as a contemporary writer observes, is
said to be Zoroaster, thought to be the king of the Bactrians, who
flourished about 3,800 years ago, or A.M. 2000. He is supposed to have
been well versed in the arts of divination and astrology, and was the
origin of the Persian magi. "At his birth," remarks an old writer, "he
laughed; and his head did so beat, that it struck back the midwife's
hand--a good sign of abundance of spirits, which are the best
instruments of a ready wit." The _magi_ in Persia, the Brahmins in
India, the Chaldae in Assyria, the magicians of Arabia, the priesthood
of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and the Druids of Britain, were all members
of a class which comprised astrology, omens, divination, conjuration,
portents, chiromancy, and sorcery; and all united in the pursuit of
enslaving mankind for the purposes of gain and power, with artfully
devised schemes, and a skilful series of impostures; and we can easily
imagine the influence they must have exercised over the minds of their
proselytes, when we bear in mind the effect produced by similar
contrivances in later days. The enchantress Theoris of Athens seems to
have been the first witch that had recourse to charms. Demosthenes uses
the terms both of witchery and imposture in speaking of her. This witch
was put to death by the Athenians--an accomplice having displayed to
them the charms, &c., by which she wrought her miracles. Our Saviour's
words, that _faith_ can remove mountains, are applicable particularly to
the supposed powers of witchcraft; and the influence of charms and
amulets in averting disease is well known. We have alluded, in our first
paper, to the trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, at Norwich, for
witchcraft; and we now give the speech of Sir Thomas Browne, the
celebrated physician of that period, (1664,) to whom, in consequence of
defect in the proof, the case was referred, which was the cause of their
conviction. Sir Thomas Browne offered it as his opinion, "that the
devil, in such cases, did work upon the bodies of men and women, upon a
natural foundation, (t