Part 27 (2/2)

[5] _The Surey Demoniack_, 49; Zachary Taylor, _The Surey Impostor, being an answer to a ... Pamphlet, Ent.i.tuled The Surey Demoniack_ (London, 1697), 21-22.

[6] ”N. N.,” _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the Dissenters from Popery...._ (London, 1698), 3-4; see also the preface of _The Surey Demoniack_.

[7] _Ibid._

[8] _The Wonders of the Invisible World: being an Account of the Tryals of ... Witches ... in New England_ (London, 1693), by Cotton Mather, and _A Further Account of the Tryals of the New-England Witches_ (London, 1693), by Increase Mather. See preface to _The Surey Demoniack_.

[9] Thomas Jollie told a curious tale about how the ma.n.u.script had been forcibly taken from the man who was carrying it to the press by a group of armed men on the Strand. See _ibid._

[10] Alexander Gordon in his article on Thomas Jollie, _Dict. Nat.

Biog._, says that the pamphlet was drafted by Jollie and expanded by Carrington. Zachary Taylor, in his answer to it (_The Surey Impostor_), constantly names Mr. Carrington as the author. ”N. N.,” in _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_, also a.s.sumes that Carrington was the author.

[11] _The Devil Turned Casuist, or the Cheats of Rome Laid open in the Exorcism of a Despairing Devil...._ By Zachary Taylor, ... (London, 1696).

[12] It is interesting that Zachary Taylor's father was a Non-Conformist; see _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_, 2.

[13] London, 1697.

[14] _The Devil Turned Casuist._

[15] _A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack_, 17.

[16] Taylor replied to Jollie's _Vindication of the Surey Demoniack_ in 1698 with a pamphlet ent.i.tled _Popery, Superst.i.tion, Ignorance and Knavery ... very fully proved ... in the Surey Imposture_. Then came _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_, by the unknown writer, ”N. N.,” whose views we give in the text. Taylor seems to have answered in a letter to ”N. N.” which called forth a scathing reply (1698) in _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication of the Dissenters...._ Taylor's reply, which came out in 1699, was ent.i.tled _Popery, Superst.i.tion, Ignorance, and Knavery Confess'd and fully Proved on the Surey Dissenters...._

[17] ”N. N.” _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_. The Rev. Alexander Gordon, in his article on Zachary Taylor, _Dict. Nat. Biog._, says that Carrington probably wrote this book. This seems impossible. The author of the book, in speaking of Mr. Jollie, Mr. R. Fr. [Frankland], and Mr.

O. H. [Oliver Heywood], refers to Mr. C. as having ”exposed himself in so many insignificant Fopperies foisted into his Narrative”--proof enough that Carrington did not write _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_.

[18] Several dissenting clergymen had opposed the publication of _The Surey Demoniack_, and had sought to have it suppressed. See _The Lancas.h.i.+re Levite Rebuked_, 2.

[19] For an account of this case see Francis Hutchinson, _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_ (London, 1718), 43. Hutchinson had made an investigation of the case when in Bury, and he had also Holt's notes of the trial.

[20] Hutchinson had Holt's notes on this case, as on the preceding; _ibid._, 45. Blackburne's letter is printed in _Notes and Queries_, 1st series, XI, 498-499, and reprinted in Brand, _Popular Antiquities_ (1905), II, 648-649.

[21] See _The Tryal of Richard Hathaway, ... For endeavouring to take away the Life of Sarah Morduck, For being a Witch ..._ (London, 1702), and _A Full and True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of Mrs.

Sarah Moordike, ... accused ... for having Bewitched one Richard Hetheway ..._; see also Hutchinson, _op. cit._, 224-228.

[22] _Ibid._, 226.

[23] A somewhat similar case at Hammersmith met with the same treatment, if the pamphlet account may be trusted. Susanna Fowles pretended to be possessed in such a way that she could not use the name of G.o.d or Christ. The application of a red-hot iron to her head in the midst of her fits was drastic but effectual. She cried out ”Oh Lord,” and so proved herself a ”notorious Lyar.” She was sent to the house of correction, where, reports the unfeeling pamphleteer, ”She is now beating hemp.” Another pamphlet, however, gives a very different version. According to this account, Susan, under Papist influences, pretended to be possessed in such a way that she was continually blaspheming. She was indicted for blasphemy, fined, and sentenced to stand in the pillory. (For the graphic t.i.tles of these contradictory pamphlets and of a folio broadside on the same subject, see appendix A, -- 7).

[24] Probably not by any court verdict, but through the privy council.

[25] See J. C. c.o.x, _Three Centuries of Derbys.h.i.+re Annals_ (London, 1890), II, 90.

[26] _Jane Wenham_ (broadside); see also _A Full and Impartial Account of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft, Practis'd by Jane Wenham ..._ (London, 1712).

[27] This narrative is given in great detail in _A Full and Impartial Account_. It is of course referred to in nearly all the other pamphlets.

[28] Jane Wenham (broadside) see also _A Full and Impartial Account_, 12.

[29] Jane Wenham (broadside); see also _A Full and Impartial Account_, 10.

<script>