.NDI.MjIzNTM

"the least reasonable doubt remaining, whether "the Divel alone or with the consent and contrast "of the suspected person hath produced that wonder= "ful effect; with what Religion or Reason can any "man incline rather to credit the Divels mouth= "in the bewitched, then to pity the accused, and be= "leive them against the subtilty of a deceitful "divel? If the Divel by Divine Permission, may cause "supernaturall concomitances & Consequences to "attend the natural actions of men without "their Allowance, as is manefest in possessed per- "sons, how is it reasonable and Just, that therin "positions of the Divel should be Imputed unto "any man? & saith he / God forbid that the Divels "signs and wonders [illegible] nay his Truths should "become any Legall allegations or evidences in "Sane. we may therfore account it unjust that "the fore named miraculory Effect by the Divell "wrought and Imputed by the bewitched, should be "Esteemed an infallible mark against any man "as therfore [crossed out word] convinced a Witch. for [carot] that the Divel and the "bewitched have so decyphered him! [illegible] that learn= ed man. But to the case in hand I have se= verall things to offer. It is possible that the persons [in Question may be possessed with a Caco daemon. That bewitched per sons are really many times possessed with Evil Spirits is most certain. And as Mr _Perkins_ ob= serves, no man can prove but that witchcraft might