.NDI.MjIzNTY

for ought I know, ther may be as much Witchery in [note in margin: q) med. pract. Lib. 6. p. g. C. 1] the tongue as in the Eye. [Underlined: Senortus?] (q) [first letter scratched out: has] dicove red the Superstition of these [fanies?] Sight dothnot proceed from an Emission of Rayes from the Eye but by a reception of the visible Species. And If it be (as Philosophers) conclude an Immanent Action and not an Emission of Optick Spirits, so that sight as such doth receive something from the Object, & not act upon it, the notion of Fascination by the Eye is unphilosophicall. It is true that [sore?] Eyes will [affect those?] that Look upon them; [the following latin phrase underlined:] Dumspect fant Oculi[letter scratched out at the end of the word, possibly an 'o' or 'p'] [leesos leeduntrir & ipsi?]. for which a [naturall?] reason is easie to be assigned; [Sout?] if witches Eyes are this [impacted?] with a [naturall?] contagion; [Whence?] is it that only bewitched persons are hurt therby? If the vulgar [Errour?] of the [Underlined:]Basilisks Killing with this Look of his poysonfull Eye were a truth, whatever person the serpent cast his Eyes upon would be poysoned. So if Witches = had a Physicall venome in their Eyes others be- side fascinated [personated?] persons would be son= [sibe other of?]. [In margin: 9] As to that which concerns bewitched persons being recovered out of their agonies by atouch of the Suspected party, it is various and falli ble. For some time the Afflicted person is made sick (instead of being made whole) by the touch of the accused. Sometimes the power of the Ima=gination is such, as that a touch of a person [under "person": ricent?]