I think there is weight in Dr. Cotta's70 Argument, viz.

      That the Gift of healing the Sick and Possessed, was a special Grace and Favour of God, for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel, but that such a Gift should be annexed to the Touch of Wicked Witches, as an infallible sign of their guilt, is not easie to be believed. It is a thing well known, that if a person possessed by an Evil Spirit, is (as oft it so happens) never so outragious whilst a good man is Praying with and for the Afflicted, let him lay his hand on them, and the Evil Spirit is quiet. I hope this is no evidence of any Covenant, or voluntary Communion between the Good Man that is Praying and the Evil Spirit; no more does the Case before us evince any such thing.

4. There are that Question the Lawfulness of the Experiment. For if this healing power in the Witch is not a Divine but a Diabolical Gift, it may be dangerous to meddle too much with it. If the Witch may be ordered to touch afflicted Persons in order to their healing or recovery out of a sick Fit, why may not the Diseased Person be as well ordered to touch the Witch for the same cause? And if to touch him, why not to scratch him and fetch Blood out of him, which is but an harder kind of touch? But as for this Mr. Perkins doubts not to call it a Practice of Witchcraft. It is not safe to meddle with any of the Devils Sacraments or Institutions; For my own part, I should be loath to say to a Man, that I knew or thought was a Witch, do you look on such a Person, and see if you can Witch them into a Fit, and there is such an afflicted Person do you take them by the Hand, and see if you can Witch them well again. If it is by vertue of some Contract with the Devil that witches have Power to do such things, it is hard to conceive how they can be bid to do them, without being too much concerned in that Hellish Covenant. I take it to be (as elsewhere71 I have expressed) a solid Principle, which the Learned Sennertus insists on, viz. That they who force another to do that which he cannot possibly do, but by vertue of a Compact with the Devil, have themselves implicitely Communion with the Diabolical Covenant. The Devil is pleased and honoured when any of his Institutions are made use of; this way of discovering Witches, is no better than that of putting the Urine of the afflicted Person into a Bottle, that so the Witch may be tormented and discovered: The Vanity and Superstition of which practice I have formerly shewed, and testified against. There was a Conjurer his name was Edward Drake72 who taught a Man to use that Experiment for the Relief of his afflicted Daughter, who found benefit thereby; But we ought not to practice Witchcraft to discover Witches, nor may we make use of a White healing Witch (as they call them) to find out a Black and Bloody one. And how did men first come to know that Witches would be discovered in such ways as these, which have been mentioned? If Satan himself were the first Discoverer (as there is reason to believe) the experiment must needs have deceit in it. See Dr. Willet on Exod. 7. Quest. 9. And such Experiments better become Pagans or Papists than Professors in New-England; whereas 'tis pleaded, that such things are practised by the Judges of the Imperial Chamber, I reply, that those Judges (as Bodin relates, Lib. 3. Dæmon. Cap. 6.) have required suspected Witches to pronounce over the afflicted persons, these words, I bless thee in the Name of the Father, &c. upon which they have immediately recovered; but is the dark day come upon us, that such Superstitions as these shall be practised in New-England: The Lord Jesus forbid it. See Baldwin's Testimony against the Practice of the Camera Imperialis, Cas. Consc. L. 3. c. 3. p. 634.

      5. If the Testimony of a bewitched or possessed Person, is of validity as to what they see done to themselves, then it is so as to others, whom they see afflicted no less than themselves: But what they affirm concerning others, is not to be taken for Evidence. Whence had they this Supernatural Sight? It must needs be either from Heaven or from Hell: If from Heaven, (as Elisha's Servant, and Balaam's Ass could discern Angels) let their Testimony be received: But if they had this Knowledge from Hell, tho' there may possibly be truth in what they affirm, they are not legal Witnesses: For the Law of God allows of no Revelation from any other Spirit but himself, Isa. 8.19. It is a Sin against God to make use of the Devil's help to know that which cannot be otherwise known: And I testifie against it, as a great Transgression, which may justly provoke the Holy One of Israel, to let loose Devils on the whole Land, Luke 4.35. See Mr. Bernard's Guide to Juries in Cases of Witchcraft, p. 136, 137, 138. And Brockmand, Theol. de Angelis, p. 227. Altho' the Devil's Accusations may be so far regarded as to cause an enquiry into the truth of things, Job 1.11, 12. & 2.5, 6. yet not so as to be an Evidence or Ground of Conviction: The Persons, concerning whom the Question is, see things through Diabolical Mediums; on which account their Evidence is not meer humane Testimony; and if it be in any part Diabolical, it is not to be owned as Authentick; for the Devil's Testimony ought not to be received neither in whole nor in part.

      6. I am told by credible Persons, who say it is certainly true, that a bewitched Person has complained that she was cast into Fits by the Look of a Dog; and that she was no more able to bear the sight of that Dog, than of the Person whom she accused as bewitching her: And that thereupon the Dog was shot to death: This Dog was no Devil; for then they could not have killed him. I suppose no one will say that Dogs are Witches: It remains then that the casting down with the Look is no infallible sign of a Witch.

      7. It has always been said, that it is a difficult thing to find out Witches: But if the Representation of such a Person as afflicting, or the Look or Touch be an infallible proof of the guilt of Witchcraft in the Persons complained of, 'tis the easiest thing in the World to discover them; for it is done to our hand, and there needs no enquiry into the Matter.

      8. Let them say this is an infallible Proof, produce any Word out of the Law of God which does in the least countenance that Assertion: The Word of God instructs Jurors and Judges to proceed upon clear humane Testimony, Deut. 35.30. But the Word no where giveth us the least Intimation, that every one is a Witch, at whose look the bewitched Person shall fall into Fits; nor yet that any other means should be used for the discovery of Witches, than what may be used for the finding out of Murderers, Adulterers, and other Criminals.

      9. Sometimes Antipathies in Nature have strange and unaccountable Effects. I have read of a Man that at the sight of his own Son, who was no Wizzard would fall into Fits. There are that find in their Natures an averseness to some Persons whom they never saw before, of which they can give no better an account than he in Martial, concerning Sabidius.

       Non Amo te Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare.

      That some Persons at the Sight of Bruit-Creatures, Cats, Spiders, &c. nay, at the sight of Cheeses, Milk, Apples, will fall into Fits, is too well known to be denied. Pensingius in his Learned Discourse De Pulvere Sympathetico, p. 128. saith, there was one in the City of Groning that could not bear the sight of a Swine's Head: And that he knew another who was not able to look on the Picture thereof. Amatus Lusitanus speaks of one that at the sight of a Rose would swoon away: This proveth that the falling into a Fit at the sight of another is not always a sign of Witchcraft. It may proceed from Nature, and the Power of Imagination.

To conclude; Judicious Casuists73 have determined, that to make use of those Media to come to the Knowledge of any Matter, which have no such power in them by Nature, nor by Divine Institution is an Implicit going to the Devil to make a discovery: Now there is no natural Power in the Look or Touch of a Person to bewitch another; nor is this by Divine Institution the means whereby Witchcraft is discovered: Therefore it is an unwarrantable Practice.

      We proceed now to the third Case proposed to Consideration; If the things which have been mentioned are not infallible Proofs of Guilt in the accused Party, it is then Queried, Whether there are any Discoveries of this Crime, which Jurors and Judges may with a safe Conscience proceed upon to the Conviction and Condemnation of the Persons under Suspicion?

      Let me here premise Two things,

      1. The Evidence in this Crime ought to be as clear