The Wonders of the Invisible World (1693)

 

Introduction to the “Identifiable Qualities” Section

The following section from Cotton Mather’s The Wonders of the Invisible World (1693) reproduces two widely circulated guides for identifying witches—one by the English Puritan William Perkins, and the other by John Gaule, an Anglican minister who wrote during the height of witchcraft anxieties in 17th-century Europe. Mather included these lists to show that the Salem magistrates were not acting arbitrarily but were following what he believed to be established theological and legal authorities.

For readers today, these “identifiable qualities” reveal far more about the fears, assumptions, and spiritual worldview of the age than they do about the people accused. They offer a window into how invisible forces were imagined to operate, how suspicion could attach itself to ordinary behaviors, and how authority attempted to codify intangible fears into recognizable signs. Mather presents these criteria as a way to demonstrate order, reason, and consistency in the midst of social disorder. Seen now, they show how the mental and emotional climate of New England shaped its judgments and actions.

The lists below are important historical artifacts—not evidence of truth, but evidence of the mindset that shaped one of the most unsettling episodes in early American history.

 

An Abſtract of Mr. Perkins his way for the Diſcovery of Witches.

(Original 1693 text, followed by modern English)

Original (I)

I. There are Preſumptions, which do at leaſt Probably and Conjecturally note one to be a Witch. Theſe give Occaſion to Examine; yet they are no Sufficient Cauſes of Conviction.

Modern English (I)

There are certain suspicions that may probably or conjecturally indicate that a person is a witch. These suspicions justify questioning the person, but they are not enough to convict them.

Original (II)

II. If any man or woman be notoriously defamed for a Witch; this yields a ſtrong Suſpicion. Yet the Judge ought carefully to Look, that the Report be made by men of Honeſty and Credit.

Modern English (II)

If someone has a widely known reputation for being a witch, that creates a strong suspicion. But the judge must make sure the reports come from honest and trustworthy people.

Original (III)

III. If a fellow Witch, or Magician, give Teſtimony of any Perſon to be a Witch; this indeed is not ſufficient for Condemnation, but it is a fit Preſumption, to cauſe a ſtrait Examination.

Modern English (III)

If another supposed witch or magician accuses someone of being a witch, this is not enough to condemn them. But it is enough to require a strict and serious examination.

Original (IV)

IV. If after Curſing there follow Death, or at leaſt ſome miſchief; for Witches are wont to practiſe their miſchievous Facts, by Curſing and Banning: This alſo is a fit matter of Examination, tho’ not of Conviction.

Modern English (IV)

If someone curses another person and afterward the victim dies or suffers some harm, this justifies examination. Witches were believed to cause harm by cursing and “banning.” But this alone is not enough to convict.

Original (V)

V. If after Enmity, Quarrelling, or Threatening, a preſent miſchief do follow; that alſo is a great Preſumption.

Modern English (V)

If after a quarrel, conflict, or threat, harm immediately follows, this too is a strong suspicion.

Original (VI)

VI. If the Party ſuſpected be the Son or Daughter, the man-ſervant or maid-servant, the Familiar Friend, near Neighbour, or old Companion of a known and convicted Witch: This may be likewiſe a Preſumption; for Witchcraft is an Art that may be learn’d, and convey’d from man to man.

Modern English (VI)

If the accused person is the child, servant, close friend, neighbor, or companion of a known witch, this creates suspicion. Witchcraft, they believed, could be learned and passed from person to person.

Original (VII)

VII. Some add this for a Preſumption; If the Party ſuſpected be found to have the Devil’s Mark; for it is commonly thought, that when the Devil makes his Covenant with them, he always leaves his mark behind him, whereby he knows them for his own: A mark, whereof no evident Reaſon in Nature can be given.

Modern English (VII)

Some say suspicion also arises if the accused has a so-called “Devil’s mark.” It was commonly believed that when the Devil made a pact with a witch, he left a mark to identify them. Such a mark had no natural explanation.

Original (VIII)

VIII. Laſtly, If the Party examined be Unconſtant, or contrary to himſelf in his deliberate Anſwers, it argueth a guilty Conſcience, which ſtops the Freedom of Utterance. And yet, there are Cauſes of Aſtoniſhment, which may befal the Good, as well as the Bad.

Modern English (VIII)

Lastly, if the accused gives inconsistent or self-contradictory answers in examination, this suggests a guilty conscience. Yet, even innocent people can become confused or overwhelmed.

Original (IX)

IX. But then there is a Conviction, diſcovering the Witch; which muſt proceed from juſt and ſufficient Proof, and not from bare Preſumptions.

Modern English (IX)

But true conviction of a witch must come from solid and sufficient proof—not mere suspicion.

Original (X)

X. Scratching the ſuſpected Party, and Recovery thereupon; with ſeveral other ſuch weak Proofs; as alſo the Fleeing of the ſuſpected Party, thrown upon the Water; Theſe Proofs are ſo far from being ſufficient, that ſome of them are after a ſort, practiſes of Witchcraft.

Modern English (X)

Practices like scratching the accused to see if the victim recovers, or throwing the accused into water to see if they float, are weak and invalid proofs. In fact, some are themselves superstitious or magical practices.

Original (XI)

XI. The Teſtimony of ſome Wizard, tho’ offering to ſhew the Witch’s face in a Glaſs; This may be a good Preſumption to cauſe a ſtrait Examination; but a ſufficient Proof of Conviction it cannot be. If the Devil tell the Grand-Jury that the Perſon in Queſtion is a Witch, and offers withal to confirm the ſame by Oath, ſhould the Inqueſt receive his Oath or Accuſation to condemn the Man? Aſſuredly, No.

Modern English (XI)

If a wizard claims he can show the witch’s face in a magic mirror, this may justify examination but not conviction. Even if the Devil himself accused someone—or swore an oath about it—the court shouldn’t accept such testimony.

Original (XII)

XII. If a man being dangerouſly Sick, and like to Dye, upon Suſpicion, will take it on his Death, that ſuch an one hath Bewitched him, it is an Allegation of the ſame Nature, which may move the Judge to Examine the Party; but it is of no moment for Conviction.

Modern English (XII)

If a dying person insists that a certain person bewitched him, this may justify investigation. But it is not good enough to convict anyone.

Original (XIII)

XIII. Among the ſufficient Means of Conviction, the firſt is, the Free and Voluntary Confeſſion of the Crime, made by the Party ſuſpected and accuſed, after Examination. I ſay not, that a bare Confeſſion is ſufficient, but a Confeſſion after due Examination, taken upon pregnant Preſumptions.

Modern English (XIII)

One valid means of conviction is a free and voluntary confession by the accused, after examination. Not just any confession counts—but one given after substantial preliminary suspicion.

Original (XIV)

XIV. There is a ſecond ſufficient Conviction, by the Teſtimony of Two Witneſſes, of good and honeſt Report, avouching before the Magiſtrate upon their own Knowledge, theſe two Things: either that the Party accuſed hath made a League with the Devil, or hath done ſome known Practiſes of Witchcraft.

Modern English (XIV)

The second form of sufficient proof is the testimony of two reliable witnesses who personally know that the accused either made a pact with the Devil or performed acts of witchcraft.

Original (XV)

XV. If it can be proved that the Party ſuſpected hath called upon the Devil, or deſired his Help; this is a pregnant proof of a League formerly made.

Modern English (XV)

If it can be shown that the accused called on the Devil or sought his help, this strongly suggests an existing pact with him.

Original (XVI)

XVI. If it can be proved, that the Party hath entertained a Familiar Spirit, and had Conference with it, in the Likeneſs of ſome viſible Creature: here is Evidence of Witchcraft.

Modern English (XVI)

If it can be shown that the accused had a “familiar spirit” (a demon in animal form) and communicated with it, this is evidence of witchcraft.

Original (XVII)

XVII. If the Witneſſes affirm upon Oath, that the ſuſpected perſon hath done any Action or Work which neceſſarily infers a Covenant made; as that he hath uſed Enchantments; Divined things before they came to paſs, and that peremptorily; Raiſed Tempeſts; cauſed the form of a Dead Man to appear; it proveth ſufficiently that he or ſhe is a Witch.

Modern English (XVII)

If witnesses swear that the accused performed acts that necessarily imply a pact with the Devil—such as casting spells, foretelling events infallibly, raising storms, or making the shape of a dead man appear—then that is considered sufficient proof of witchcraft.

Would you like me to continue with:

  • Gaule’s Judgment (the next long section)?

  • or

  • The earlier prefatory material (“Observations as well Historical as Theological…”)?

I can do the entire book this way if you want.

 

 

You said:
no. What you can do is give a little information on who Cotton Mather was?
 

ChatGPT said:

Certainly — here is a clear, concise portrait of Cotton Mather, focusing on the aspects most relevant to The Wonders of the Invisible World and the period you’re studying.

Cotton Mather (1663–1728)

Cotton Mather was a New England Puritan minister, writer, and intellectual—one of the most influential and controversial figures of colonial America. He belonged to the Mather dynasty of ministers: his father Increase Mather and grandfather Richard Mather were among the most prominent Puritan leaders in New England.