[PDF Download] Caring for souls in a neoliberal age 1st edition bruce rogers-vaughn (auth.) full cha
Caring for Souls in a Neoliberal Age 1st Edition
Bruce Rogers-Vaughn (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/caring-for-souls-in-a-neoliberal-age-1st-edition-brucerogers-vaughn-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
After critique. Twenty-first-century fiction in a neoliberal age 1st Edition Mitchum Huehls
Secession in the Formal-Legalist Paradigm: Implications for Contemporary Revolutionary and Popular Movements in the Age of Neoliberal Globalization Kenneth E. Bauzon
While the relationship of religion and power is a perennial topic, it only continues to grow in importance and scope in our increasingly globalized and diverse world. Religion, on a global scale, has openly joined power struggles, often in support of the powers that be. But at the same time, religion has made major contributions to resistance movements. In this context, current methods in the study of religion and theology have created a deeper awareness of the issue of power: Critical theory, cultural studies, postcolonial theory, subaltern studies, feminist theory, critical race theory, and working class studies are contributing to a new quality of study in the field. This series is a place for both studies of particular problems in the relation of religion and power as well as for more general interpretations of this relation. It undergirds the growing recognition that religion can no longer be studied without the study of power.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14754
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
To my wife, Annette, with gratitude and love
And in loving memory for my son Taylor Vaughn 1986–1995
And my mother Doris Louise Vaughn 1933–2014
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
(Matthew 6:12)
A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As most authors are aware, books do not appear without a great deal of inspiration from and collaboration with others. I am particularly grateful to three professional associations of psychotherapists for opportunities to share my developing ideas concerning the social and political origins of the sufferings to which we collectively bear witness. The Southeast Region of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and the Tennessee Association of Pastoral Therapists both graciously allowed me to speak to this issue during their annual conferences. I was also invited to offer a daylong workshop on this subject during the spring of 2015, hosted by the Nashville Psychotherapy Institute. The encouragement and lively dialogue I enjoyed during these meetings have been critical in the effort to keep my theorizing grounded in the distresses experienced by actual human beings and in the challenges faced by those who must listen and respond to them. Along similar lines, I wish to thank my clinical associates at the Pastoral Center for Healing in Nashville, Tennessee—Tom Knowles-Bagwell, Rod Kochtitzky, Annette Rogers-Vaughn, Gay Welch, and Elizabeth ZagattaAllison. It has been a pleasure to know them as both friends and colleagues, and their support and ongoing companionship have contributed immeasurably to this project.
I have lived and worked not only in clinical settings, but in academic ones as well. Here, I must especially recognize my colleagues in the Society for Pastoral Theology (SPT). During June of 2014, I was honored to deliver a “work in progress” address to the full body of the society. Without the energetic feedback that followed, this book might not ever have matured to see the light of day. Several members of SPT have been
regular conversation partners or have played pivotal roles in stimulating this work. These include Nancy J. Ramsay, Barbara J. McClure, Ryan LaMothe, Philip Browning Helsel, and Denise Dombkowski Hopkins. In parallel to my everyday associates in clinical work, I enjoy the company of esteemed scholars at Vanderbilt Divinity School, where I have been teaching for many years. My peers in the area of Religion, Psychology and Culture—Bonnie Miller-McLemore, Evon Flesberg, Jaco Hamman, Phillis Isabella Sheppard, and Volney P. Gay—have been a dependable source of encouragement and wise counsel. I am immensely indebted also to my students, especially those who enrolled in the course “Pastoral Care and Global Capitalism.” These individuals were patient with me as I rolled out partially formed ideas, and were keen to point out elements that were either missing or not yet quite digestible. One of these students, Aaron Palmer, helpfully tracked down several much-needed references early in the project. Another former student, Morgan Watts, provided indispensable assistance proofing the manuscript and preparing it for final submission.
My deep appreciation goes out to Joerg Rieger, the series editor for the collection in which this volume appears, for inviting me to submit a proposal and for his valuable advice and stimulating conversations along the way. My thanks also to all the dedicated staff members at Palgrave Macmillan for their help in bringing this task to completion, especially to my editor, Phil Getz, and his assistant, Alexis Nelson, whose correspondences were always timely and beneficial.
Many of the souls whose presence accompanied me through every page of this book literally cannot be named. They are the many individuals who sought me out for a psychotherapy relationship over the past three decades. Working with them has enriched my life beyond measure and, I believe, has made me wiser than I could have otherwise become. I can only hope I have represented their struggles accurately and fairly.
Finally, I thank my family—Annette Rogers-Vaughn, Mackenzie Vaughn, and the twins, Blake and Huntley Rogers-Vaughn. Unfortunately, writing this book has often demanded too much sacrifice from them all. The currently eight-year-old twins’ recurring inquiry—“Are you done with the book yet?”—has been one of the primary motivations to actually finish. Thanks largely to passing the days with these four precious souls, I know at least as much about joy as I do suffering.
L IST OF F IGURES
Fig. 1.1 Child poverty rate, Ft. Payne, Alabama (USA): 1989–2013. Comparison by census tract. ACS 2009–2013 (five-year estimates) data as compiled by Social Explorer, accessed through Vanderbilt University Library 14
Fig. 1.2 Annual number of publications on neoliberalism, 1980–2014: Comparison between theological studies and the social sciences.
Fig. 2.1 Increasing income inequality in the USA, 1917–2014. Income is defined as market income (and excludes government transfers). In 2014, top decile includes all families with annual income above $121,400
Fig. 2.2 Income inequality and social well-being: The world’s 23 wealthiest countries
Fig. 3.1 Percentage preferring no religion by year, United States: 1972–2012.
24
57
59
74
CHAPTER
1
Introduction: Preface to a Post-Capitalist Pastoral Theology
How could it happen that a Baptist minister who grew up in the United States, in the Deep South no less, in a politically and religiously conservative milieu, ever wanted to author a book criticizing capitalism? I am aware of three sets of motives. First, from the mid-1980s to this day, I have worked as a pastoral counselor and psychotherapist. Aside from some adjunct teaching, this was my sole occupation from 1992 until 2010. Throughout my professional career, I have conducted approximately 30,000 counseling sessions. Sustaining such intimate acquaintance with people over time has permitted me to observe bewildering changes that have been occurring between and within human beings in my part of the world during these 30 years.
The average individual I encounter in the clinical situation today is not the same as the person who sat with me 30 years ago. Sometimes the changes are subtle. Often they are obvious. But they are pervasive and apparently widespread. There has been a marked increase in self-blame among those seeking my care, as well as an amorphous but potent dread that they are somehow teetering on the edge of a precipice. This is confounded by the appearance of a few individuals who seem far more selfassured and confident, even entitled or defiant, than I have previously witnessed. Somewhat mysteriously, these highly self-reliant souls seem more superficial and one-dimensional than their depressive or anxious cohorts. Meanwhile, addictive behaviors have become more prevalent and
B. Rogers-Vaughn, Caring for Souls in a Neoliberal Age, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-55339-3_1
have quickly expanded into areas of life not usually associated with compulsivity. Relationships, even familial or romantic ones, seem to be becoming more ephemeral and contrived, almost businesslike. The people I now see tend to manifest a far more diffuse or fragmented sense of self, are frequently more overwhelmed, experience powerful forms of anxiety and depression too vague to be named, display less self-awareness, have often loosened or dropped affiliations with conventional human collectives, and are increasingly haunted by shame rooted in a nebulous sense of personal failure. I find myself more disquieted and even confused than I used to be while sitting with people, even less “myself.” What has happened?
Puzzled by this, I began to investigate. I soon became aware that a number of clinicians, particularly psychoanalysts, had been making observations similar to mine. In a prescient set of reflections, Bollas (1987) had argued that a new sort of person was emerging that he called “normotic personality” (pp. 135–156). Such an individual suffers a numbing or erasure of subjectivity, experiencing herself as a commodity in a world of commodities. Samuels (2003/2006) noted that something happened during the period from 1980 to 1990 that began to alter his patients’ presentations. Consulting with his analytic colleagues, he concluded: “We tended to put it down to the fact that, since the mid-1980s, the pace of political change in the world appeared to have quickened” (pp. 12–13). The analysts Layton, Hollander, and Gutwill (2006) pinned such changes to powerful shifts within capitalism as it was practiced in the United States, arguing that such alterations had produced a “traumatogenic environment” (pp. 1–5). Noticing that other clinicians’ observations, like my own, were chiefly anecdotal, I looked around for additional sorts of evidence. Sure enough, careful scientific surveys and empirical studies were showing that depression, anxiety, and addiction were increasing, not only in the United States but globally. Simultaneously, I noticed that a number of sociologists and geographers were recognizing developments pointing to the erosion of communities and human collectives.
I returned to my therapy patients.1 I listened ever more closely to their self-blame. Were there clues? My suffering subjects complained persistently about their situations or moods, but almost all (except the super-confident outliers) concluded they themselves were somehow the problem. If they had not made that fateful decision, or if they were more intelligent, or more motivated, or more beautiful, or more talented, and so on, then maybe they would not be in this mess. Many perceived their problems as rooted in their identities. Maybe if they were not a woman, or a man,
or gay, or black, or white, or adopted, or an immigrant, or Catholic, and so on, things would be better for them. Many attributed their sufferings to childhood traumas, or parental or family dysfunctions. But even those who saw the roots of their psychic pain in their identities or in trauma still believed only they could do anything about their problems. If they had suffered so long and still were not making headway, they mused, perhaps they were doing something wrong; or, even worse, something was wrong with them. So in the end, they felt just as responsible as my other, ostensibly more fortunate clients. I was starting to understand why people were drinking more, taking more drugs, “veg’ing out” playing video games, retreating into their smartphones, social media, iPads, or otherwise losing themselves in some other manic activity or distraction. I was beginning to entertain it myself.
Then I began to notice how much blaming was occurring in our society, particularly toward those who were not succeeding in “the land of opportunity.” On cable and online news outlets, pundits could be heard villainizing the less fortunate. Apparently if people were poor, or were struggling in some way, it was their own damned fault. Even those in the shrinking middle class were often portrayed as less than sufficiently successful, as deficient in some fundamental way. Television programs had become heavily populated by beautiful and well-off people, with the apparent suggestion that these are the ones we should emulate. The everpopular “reality shows” had turned cut-throat competition into entertainment, thus normalizing the belief that it is natural for the world to contain a very few “winners” surrounded by multitudes of “losers.”
The same themes were showing up in national and local politics. Many politicians, backed up by a number of theorists within the academy, interpreted growing inequality as either a temporary evil or the price of progress in a necessarily highly competitive market. It is inevitable, according to such experts, that some unfortunate ones are simply unable to keep up. Dominant economic ideologies increasingly paint the world in stark “survival of the fittest” terms. I began to wonder, along with the analysts I had been reading, if there might be a relationship between what I was seeing in the media, politics, and the economy, and what I was witnessing in the therapeutic space. I also started to suspect that “private” suffering was governed primarily by dynamics distal to the individual—in the broader social, economic, and political environment. I found this idea overwhelming, perhaps due to my own relatively privileged perspective as a professional white male, and decided to set it aside for later investigation.
However, I was unsuccessful. I could not leave it alone. Through the rearview mirror, I can see that my sensitivity to these matters has become more acute due to my having grown up in a working-class family and community. This has to qualify as another origin of my passion to write this book. My father was, at various times, a member of the United Automobile Workers and the International Union of Electricians. His father and grandfather were both life-long coal miners in Appalachia, and were active members of the United Mine Workers. My mother’s family consisted chiefly of rural sustenance farmers, truck drivers, and factory hands. To this day, I support the right of workers to collective bargaining and union membership. If my father, by the time I was ten years of age, had not eventually earned union wages, I would never have been able to attend college.
The life circumstances of the working class are not just memories for me. Neither of my parents, nor my sister, and none of my cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents, or great grandparents ever attended college. This was rarely even an option. Most have done jobs requiring hard physical labor, which has often meant that their bodies have worn out before they could reach retirement. Some have become prematurely disabled or died from work-related injuries. For over 30 years, my father worked on an assembly line, bending sheet metal at a General Electric factory. Today he is hearing impaired from sitting beside a hydraulic press for that period of time. Many in my extended family still struggle to sustain themselves. One cousin, now in his early 60s, has continued to work two jobs to make ends meet. He recently learned that his new boss, a college-educated individual less than half his age, moved him to another shift that will require him to quit one of his jobs. He will likely no longer earn a living wage. Another cousin, the one with whom I was most intimate during my childhood and youth, died a few years ago from a pulmonary embolus. His death was unnecessary. He had put off treatment for an infection in his leg, which was secondary to a serious work injury, because he had inadequate insurance and financial resources. Suffice it to say I have little patience for those who claim that the “underemployed” and the poor are happy to live off the government, or are lazy or unintelligent. My relatives, on the average, work as many or more hours than I do, and under conditions over which they have far less control. As such incidents suggest, recent changes within capitalism have not been kind to my relatives and friends back in my small hometown, or to most people in the remainder of the United States or the world for that matter. These developments will be illustrated, documented and untangled in this book.
So two motives for writing this book are already apparent. I am pushed by my allegiance to working-class people who brought me into this world, and I am pulled by curiosity as to what might explain the changes I have seen, over the last three decades, in the people coming to me for care. The third source concerns the character of my therapeutic practice as the care of souls. The focus of my clinical work has been two-fold: to alleviate pain and distress whenever possible, and, whether or not this is possible, to assist people in hearing their suffering. What is it calling them to do and/ or to understand? Often in the course of pastoral conversations, I have noted that physical pain, according to physicians and biological scientists, has a function. It calls for us to attend to it, and to take action to address a threat or problem. Psychological, relational, and spiritual suffering, as I have frequently indicated to those receiving my consideration, has a similar function. At minimum these particular sufferings insist on finding a voice. And often they call upon their subjects to initiate a course of action. This action may be limited to their own material or psychological space, but most often also extends to their relational, communal, or even social or political spaces.
This method of attention has yielded practical wisdom, both for myself and for those I have served. I (and we) have learned that, when unheeded, pain produces and structures alienation, injustice, ignorance, division, and isolation into our individual and collective lives. As I have regularly said to those who seek my attention, much of our suffering comes from our efforts to avoid or deny suffering. I (we) have also learned that, when articulated and heard, pain may yield and structure connection, continuity, integrity, justice, and direction into our individual and collective lives.
Taken together, this type of attention and the wisdom it engenders constitute healing, the care of soul. In this context, soul refers neither to a supernatural or natural essence, nor to some dimension of self separate from the material. I understand soul, rather, as an aspect of the embodied self, namely the activity of self-transcendence, where this refers not to an act of individual rationality, but to that activity which holds individuals in relation with self, others, creation, and the Eternal (whether or not this ultimate value is recognized as God). While I will discuss soul in detail later in this book, I must note here that soul, by its very nature, cannot be confined within the individual. It is, rather, a fabric that embeds every one of us within all that is. It is our existence within the “living human web” (Miller-McLemore, 1996), and within creation. That said, souls do not simply become ill or fail to thrive from within. They wither or become disoriented when the fabric becomes torn or stained.
However, there is a growing discord between the care of souls and the cultural and political environment that has emerged since the early 1980s. This is now so acute that I believe the care of souls to be threatened. The field of counseling and psychotherapy, as well as other practices of care, has been colluding with these changes, and has itself been transformed by the now dominant paradigm. The emphasis on “measurable outcomes” and “empirically supported treatments” promoted by the “best practices” culture of mental health disciplines—all indicators of a neoliberalized attitude—insists on instilling adaptation to society (rather than resistance), functioning in accord with the values of production and consumption (rather than communion and wholeness in relation to others and the earth), on symptom relief (rather than meaning-making), and accepting personal responsibility (rather than interdependent reliance within the web of human relationships). Meanwhile, the now dominant ideology of the psychological disciplines, at least in the United States, identifies the source of personal distress as originating solely within the individual (rather than primarily the social and political environment), and thus exacerbates the self-blame that underlies much contemporary distress. Consequently, I see the currently prevailing practices of psychotherapy as sophisticated exercises in blaming the victim. Unfortunately, as we shall see, this general approach to care is no longer limited to professional counseling and related forms of care, but has infected the way we now understand care in all its manifestations.
The concerns and anxieties rooted in these three areas feed my appetite for this book. I will be contending that all these changes are driven by the transformation and global expansion of capitalism that has advanced steadily since the early 1980s. There is now growing evidence, produced across an array of disciplines, that this development—now widely known under the umbrella term “neoliberalism”—has been progressively and systematically undermining social, interpersonal, and psychological wellbeing. In accord with Antonio Gramsci’s (1929–1932/1992–2007) notion of hegemony, I will contend that neoliberalism has become so encompassing and powerful that it is now the most significant factor in shaping how, why, and to what degree human beings suffer.
At the same time, no hegemony achieves complete and absolute control. If this were the case, there would be no hope for a form of care that could address the suffering it produces. My clinical experience leads me to have confidence that human longing is difficult to entirely suppress, and has a way of seeping up through the cracks of any system of domination.
The care of what has been called “soul”—that dimension of self that is sustained in communion with self, others, creation, and the Eternal—attends solicitously to this longing. Part of the structure of any hegemony is the character and location of its cracks, such that it also governs, even in its failures, practices of care. Any care that responds to the sufferings it generates, in other words, will necessarily seek out and respond to a hegemony’s distinguishing fractures.
A corollary of the claim that neoliberalism is now globally hegemonic is that pastoral care, as well as other forms of the care of souls, must undergo revision in order to have some hope adequate for both healing and protest. In this book, I will argue that the theories corresponding to this care, including pastoral theology, are generally constrained within postmodern cognitive models, as well as dwelling largely within the fabric of neoliberal versions of identity politics. Any substantial innovation in the fields of pastoral theology and the care of souls today, therefore, will require us to reaffirm our commitment to a common ground that unifies us as diverse people, and to the public good. It will also demand that we extend our analyses and critiques of oppression due to difference (identity) to include the problems of domination intrinsic to capitalism. Indeed, it will mean that subjugations rooted in difference will now be understood, and appreciated more profoundly, in light of capitalism’s current global hegemony. The time has arrived, then, to work toward a post-capitalist pastoral theology, by which I mean a pastoral theology that does not assume the normativity of capitalism.
In the remainder of this chapter, I will lay a foundation for the work of this book. In pastoral theology and other theories of care, it is customary to begin with a case or clinical vignette in order to ground succeeding reflections in human experience. I will follow this practice. However, I will be attempting to show throughout this book that no clear line exists between what we call public or social space, and what we usually refer to as personal or psychological space. In fact, I will argue that social and cultural dynamics, including the economic and political, are the most powerful forces shaping both interpersonal and psychological experience. The “case” I offer in the next section, therefore, is a summary of the changes occurring since 1980 within localities in the United States. Bits and pieces of individual and interpersonal experience, as we will see, arise organically within the discussion of this context. Following this, I provide a brief preliminary description of neoliberal capitalism as the overarching paradigm guiding these changes and experiences. I then inquire whether pastoral
theology, as the theory that frames pastoral care, has been in collusion with the neoliberalization of society, and whether a post-capitalist pastoral theology is possible. Finally, I will offer an overview of the book in order to provide the reader with an orientation to the larger argument.
LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE SILENT REVOLUTION, 1980–2015
In his most recent book Wages of Rebellion (2015), Chris Hedges reports an interview he held with Avner Offer, an economic historian at Oxford University. Offer contends that “a silent revolution” in economics occurred during the 1970s, centered in the United States and the United Kingdom (pp. 76–80). This instigated political and cultural revolutions in both countries, also relatively quiet compared with typical revolutions, beginning with the elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in 1979 and 1980. We continue to live in the deep shadows of this revolution, and today reside in a renovated economic, political, and cultural climate.
In the United States the transformations since 1980 have been chronicled by a number of scholars, but perhaps none of them are better known than the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. In Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (2015), Putnam documents the growing economic inequality in the United States and the effects on class, communities, families, and education. Putnam begins the book reviewing changes in Port Clinton, Ohio—population 6500—his hometown. When he graduated from high school in 1959, he observes: “Family or not, the townspeople thought of all the graduates as ‘our kids’” (p. 3). During those days, Putnam recalls, the residents of Port Clinton exhibited a neighborhood mentality. People freely associated across class lines as they attended one another’s weddings and birthday parties, worshipped in local churches, or collaborated in civic organizations. Children from poorer working-class families hung out with children of wealthy families. Upward mobility was quite apparent, as the community encouraged and supported adolescents from working-class families in their efforts to seek higher education. For instance, one of his classmates, Don, was quite poor. Neither of his parents completed high school, and his father worked two factory jobs to make ends meet. They owned neither a car nor television. Interviewed later as an adult, Don downplayed the class distinctions in Port Clinton: “I lived on the east side of town…and money was on the west side of town. But
you met everyone as an equal through sports” (p. 4). Although his parents knew nothing about college, Don reported that a minister in the town saw potential in him and recommended him to the university, helped him get financial aid, and guided him through the admissions process. Later, Don completed seminary and became a minister himself.
Meanwhile, Frank, another classmate, was “from one of the few wealthy families in Port Clinton” (p. 5). In fact, Frank’s parents were the wealthiest and best educated of the parents of the class of 1959. And yet Frank’s parents were careful to minimize their wealth, putting relationships with others in the community above their own self-interests. They encouraged Frank to participate in activities with peers from less financially well-off families, and not to allow his social standing to make others uncomfortable. His grandfather once admonished his uncle: “If we’re in Cleveland or New York, you can order whatever you want, but when you’re with kids in Port Clinton, you do what they can do” (p. 5). This is not reflective of life in Port Clinton today. Putnam reflects:
As my classmates and I marched down the steps after graduation in 1959, none of us had any inkling that change was coming …. But just beyond the horizon an economic, social, and cultural whirlwind was gathering force nationally that would radically transform the life chances of our children and grandchildren. For many people, its effects would be gut-wrenching, for Port Clinton turns out to be a poster child for the changes that have swept across America in the last several decades. (pp. 19–20)
Putnam then surveys the devastation: a decline in manufacturing employment from 55 % of jobs in 1965 to 25 % in 1995, a gradual decline in real wages, a stagnant population, longer commutes in search of better wages, a doubling of single-parent households, a quadrupling in the divorce rate, and a steep rise in rates of juvenile delinquency. Port Clinton has become a shadow of its former self:
Most of the downtown shops of my youth stand empty and derelict, driven out of business partly by the Family Dollar and the Walmart on the outskirts of town, and partly by the gradually shrinking paychecks of Port Clinton consumers. (p. 20)
But that is only part of the story. The other is “the birth of the new upper class” (p. 21) in Port Clinton. Its picturesque location on the shores of Lake Erie began to attract wealthier professionals from nearby Cleveland
and Columbus, who settled in mansions and gated communities along those shores. In the lavish Catawba Island area of town, “Luxury condos ring golf courses and lagoons filled with opulent yachts” (p. 22). Meanwhile, though the child poverty rate remained practically zero in the Catawba section, child poverty throughout most of Port Clinton increased from below 5 % in 1990 to over 35 % between 2008 and 2012. Putnam observes that, driving east along East Harbor Road, the census tract to the left has a child poverty rate of 1 %, while the tract on the right side of the road has a rate of 51 % (p. 22).
On one side of the road lives Chelsea (pp. 24–26). Her mother, Wendy, an educator in private practice, has a graduate degree. She comes from a prominent family in Michigan. Her father, Dick, is a manager in “a major national corporation,” and “travels a great deal for his business.” Chelsea’s parents make sure one of them is at home every day when she gets home from school. They throw her themed birthday parties every year, and build an expensive 1950s-style diner in the basement where she can hang out with her friends. Wendy is proud to be involved with Chelsea’s education, and recalls an incident during the seventh grade when Chelsea received a low grade due to an incomplete assignment. Wendy appealed to the principal and ultimately the school board, who changed the grade and transferred the teacher. Despite their financial comfort, Wendy does not see their family as especially affluent: “Most parents around here are Midwest parents who work for their money …. It’s not like Beverly Hills or the Hamptons.” She makes sure her kids take part-time and summer jobs, noting “You have to work if you want to get rich.” Wendy resents proposals to provide funding for educating poorer kids: “If my kids are going to be successful, I don’t think they should have to pay other people who are sitting around doing nothing for their success.” As Putnam clearly insinuates, Port Clinton has long since devolved from a community where “our kids” live, to one divided between “my kids” and “their kids.”
On the other side of the road lives David (pp. 26–29). His father, a high school dropout, tries first to make a living driving a truck, then must settle for picking up temporary jobs. He ultimately ends up in prison. After his parents separate when he is little, David’s mother moves out and he no longer knows exactly where she lives. David is tossed back and forth between staying with his paternal grandmother and his father, who continues to be in and out of prison. After a string of women enter and leave his dad’s life, he finally settles down with a woman when David is around ten years of age. Though they never marry, David calls her his
stepmother. She is addicted to drugs and alcohol, and finally leaves his dad for someone else. When this happens, says David, his dad “went off the deep end” with drugs and women. The undependability of adults leaves David with the sense that “nobody gave a shit” about him or his nine half-siblings. He copes by isolating himself and smoking marijuana. After circulating through several schools, he gets kicked out and ends up in a “behavior school.” He eventually has a criminal record after breaking into a series of stores with some other kids, then violating probation by getting drunk and flunking a drug test. David nevertheless finishes high school, but then gets stuck in a series of dead-end jobs due to his juvenile record, which he cannot get expunged because he has no money to pay the necessary legal fees. Despite everything, David tells the interviewer: “I really want to get a higher education …. I need one. It’s hard to get a job without one anymore.” But he cannot get there. No one in the town has bothered to reach out and help. At the same time, he feels great responsibility for his half-siblings, who also have no stable adults to look after them. In fact, when Putnam first meets David in a public park in 2012, at the age of 18, he is “affectionately watching over an eight-year-old halfbrother.” That same year David’s girlfriend becomes pregnant. Within two years she leaves him, and they are sharing custody of their daughter. David “lives paycheck to paycheck,” but enjoys being a dad. The narrative closes with a Facebook update David posts in 2014, upset with his girlfriend’s betrayal and frustrated with his hopeless job: “I always end up at the losing end … I just want to feel whole again. I’ll never get ahead! I’ve been trying so hard at everything in my life and still get no credit at all. Done…I’m FUCKING DONE!” Putnam concludes that this story is typical for present-day Port Clinton: “Compared to working-class kids in 1959, their counterparts today, like David, lead troubled, isolated, hopeless lives” (p. 30).
On one side of the road are family dinners, fancy parties, “helicopter parenting,” and an abundance of adult support. On the other side, people are having trouble being families at all, and usually there is no one stepping up to help. Putnam, summarizing his research for his book, notes that his hometown is only one example of a pattern that has spread across the United States:
Port Clinton is just one small town among many, of course—but the rest of this book will show that its trajectory during the past five decades, and the divergent destinies of its children, are not unique. Port Clinton is not simply a
Rust Belt story, for example, although it is that. Subsequent chapters will trace similar patterns in communities all over the country, from Bend, Oregon, to Atlanta, and from Orange County, California, to Philadelphia. (p. 30, emphasis in original)
So, this has happened throughout the United States? I decided to check my own hometown—Fort Payne, Alabama—to compare with Putnam’s. After all, Port Clinton is in “the North,” and Fort Payne in “the Deep South.” Might they be very different? Like Port Clinton, Fort Payne was far from perfect as I was growing up. Both towns were (and are) predominately white, and even after the schools integrated in the 1960s, Fort Payne remained otherwise quite racially segregated. Patriarchy dominated, and minorities were far from being treated fairly. Sexually, any individual other than a cisgender heterosexual remained deeply in the closet. And yet, as with Port Clinton, community life displayed fluidity across class boundaries. As the child of a factory worker and “housewife,” I discovered several of my closest friend’s parents were doctors, lawyers, or other professionals. I will never forget the first visit to my best friend’s home, who was the son of a well-paid engineer and a school teacher. I had never been a guest in a house so spacious, and with features—such as a house-wide built-in intercom and a central vacuum system—that I had not even known existed. Teachers and other adults in the community just assumed, because my grades were good, that I was headed for college, despite the fact that no one in my family had ever done such a thing. My school guidance counselor encouraged me to apply to one of the better private colleges in the state, and then helped me navigate the application process, something about which my parents could know very little. Upon my graduation from high school, in 1974, the community gathered with obvious pride, as they did in Port Clinton in 1959, in “our kids.”
But the same sorts of changes that swept through Port Clinton would not spare Fort Payne. Nestled between the hills of southern Appalachia, the town was once hailed as the “Official Sock Capital of the World.” At their production height, around 2001, Fort Payne’s 125 textile mills manufactured one of every eight pairs of socks sold on the planet, and close to half of those sold in the United States (Marshall, 2011; Martin, 2011). These mills employed about 8,000 people in a city of only 14,000 residents. One of every three jobs was related to making socks. However, the free trade policies aggressively implemented by the United States from the mid-1990s forward progressively eroded the success of the mills. The
cost of labor in Fort Payne, with a non-unionized workforce already cheap by national standards, could not compete with labor costs at similar sock mills in Central America, and especially in Datang, China (Lee, 2005). As large international retailers, such as Walmart, pursued cheaper socks from abroad, demand for the town’s main industry dried up almost overnight. By 2011 less than ten hosiery plants remained, employing fewer than 600 workers (Carter, 2011). An office manager at one of the remaining mills reported that residents were calling in every day, begging for jobs: “Every day, you get at least 20 calls from people wanting to know if they can come back to work.” Another individual noted that, even if one was lucky enough to get called back, the jobs were not the same: “Used to be, you’d do one thing and that’s what you did…Now, you do five jobs. That’s what you do now. That’s the times” (Marshall, 2011).
Although different from Port Clinton in some respects, the consequences in Fort Payne have been similar. Manufacturing jobs have declined from 43 % in 1980 to 28 % in 2013. The divorce rate has more than doubled during that same period. The unemployment rate has increased from less than 4 % to over 11 %. The number of college graduates living in the city has decreased from an already low 14.7 % to 10.7 %. The level of childhood poverty (the percentage of those 18 years of age and below living in households below the poverty level), within the five census tracts comprising the heart of Fort Payne, increased from 3.97 % in 1989 to 28.63 % in the period from 2008 to 2013.2 As with Putnam’s hometown, graphics of the child poverty rate, comparing the same census tracts from 1989 to 2013, vividly illustrates the increasing economic inequality in my hometown (see Fig. 1.1. The darker the area appears, the higher the poverty rate).
The child poverty rate in tract 9612, just north of downtown, has hardly changed at about 8 %. Meanwhile, just across the street in tract 9613, the rate has increased from 4 % to almost 46 % during the same period. The increasing class segregation visible here coupled with reductions in overall education levels, Putnam contends (2015, pp. 41–45), are critical indicators of social mobility. Whereas conventional methods measuring social mobility depend on “lagging indicators,” class segregation and education levels of parents are reliable indicators of future social mobility. If Putnam is correct, then individuals in Port Clinton and Fort Payne—indeed throughout the United States—are increasingly destined to remain in the class into which they are born. In Putnam’s words,
Fig. 1.1 Child poverty rate, Ft. Payne, Alabama (USA): 1989–2013. Comparison by census tract. ACS 2009–2013 (five-year estimates) data as compiled by Social Explorer, accessed through Vanderbilt University Library
social mobility “seems poised to plunge in the years ahead, shattering the American Dream” (p. 44).
Putnam concludes that what is apparent in Port Clinton (and Fort Payne) is pervasive across the United States: “the ballooning economic gap has been accompanied by growing de facto segregation of Americans across class lines” (2015, p. 37). Putnam observes that three trends emerge from this change. First, neighborhoods have become more separate: “More and more families live either in uniformly affluent neighborhoods or in uniformly poor neighborhoods,” resulting in “a kind of incipient class apartheid” (pp. 38–39). Second, neighborhood segregation “has been translated into de facto class-based school segregation” (p. 39). Finally, people in such unequal circumstances “tend to marry others like themselves,” especially in terms of educational level and class. Consequently, kin networks are ever more constricted along class lines (pp. 40–41). This leads to some rather unexpected results. Class segregation among African Americans, for example, has increased more than it has for whites. This is not lost on Putnam, who notes that “while race-based segregation has been slowly declining, class-based segregation has been increasing. In fact,
the trend toward class segregation has been true within each major racial group” (pp. 38–39, emphasis in original).
My initiation of a pastoral care book with such collective “cases,” rather than the customary vignettes confined largely to narrating the experiences of individuals or perhaps families, may seem odd to many people. What could this have to do with caring professions, and, in particular, any caregiving effort that stands in the “care of souls” tradition? As we will see in the following chapter, the socioeconomic shifts visible in the small towns of Port Clinton and Fort Payne since 1980, and indeed across the United States, have been accompanied by a massive deterioration of social well-being. These decades, marked by a rapid increase in economic inequality and class-based segregation, have seen a remarkable decline in the quality of social relations, along with steep increases in the incidence of depression, addiction (and “mental disorders” generally), violence and incarceration; decreased life expectancy; waning educational performance; and declining social mobility. Later, I will summarize how this extends to the weakening of human collectives, interpersonal relationships, including even the quality and exchange of human emotions, and the disintegration of human subjectivity. Stated theologically, these conditions are weakening the human soul, that connective tissue linking us together as a human community, as well as to creation and the Eternal. In other words, the transformations occurring in society are related to the full spectrum of human problems that have traditionally occupied the caregiving professions and human care as a whole, including the care of soul. Finally, by using such collective cases, I am anticipating a central claim of this book— that human relational and psychological sufferings are best understood as rooted primarily in material, social, and even political conditions, rather than simply in some underlying physiological process or in individual decisions or behaviors.
If these claims hold water—and I implore the reader to withhold judgment until considering the evidence and reflections presented in the remainder of this book—two questions come immediately to mind. First, is there some greater trend, process, or program that is fueling the changes in Port Clinton, Fort Payne, the United States, and indeed the world beyond, over these several decades? Second, if such a program can be identified, are those concerned with human care, and especially the care of souls, aware of or tending to this all-encompassing development?
AT
THE HEART
OF THE REVOLUTION: CAPITALISM UNHINGED
In the opening reflections of this chapter I have, of course, betrayed my hand. I do believe there is sufficient evidence for a larger pattern explaining the developments I have just mentioned. Social scientists in the academy are famously cautious about making claims concerning causes of the events they so carefully catalogue. This includes Putnam (2015). In Our Kids, he identifies several important markers or symptoms, but demurs when responding to the question as to why such changes are occurring (pp. 72–77). Given the enormous complexities of human relationships at all levels, I certainly respect such restraint. However, those who are directly involved in the social, relational, psychological, or spiritual care of human beings rarely have the luxury to wait for what might count as empirical proof. When dealing with such intricacies, we usually must settle for reasonable theories based on highly suggestive or strong correlations. The urgency to adopt a governing theory becomes critical when, as we are observing now, the impact on human suffering is broad, deep, and accelerating. In this book, I will argue that the best candidate for such a governing theory is that the doctrines and practices of neoliberal capitalism are grounding the transformations we are witnessing today. Although I will discuss the history and development of neoliberalism in some detail in the next chapter, perhaps I should summarize here what neoliberalization entails.
Though the complexity and local diversity of neoliberalism make simple definitions risky, it is important to attempt a description of its universal characteristics as the reigning grand narrative. Jones (2012) has offered perhaps the most succinct definition, describing neoliberalism as “the free market ideology based on individual liberty and limited government that connected human freedom to the actions of the rational, self-interested actor in the competitive marketplace” (p. 2). We should carefully notice here that freedom has been redefined on the market’s terms, and that society has been replaced by isolated and competitive individuals. Moreover, the actions of these individuals emerge from conscious choices based on self-interest rather than the common good. Steger and Roy (2010) note that the policy practices flowing from this ideology follow the now familiar “D-L-P formula”—Deregulation, Liberalization, and Privatization (p. 14). The deregulation of the economy means that governments reduce or withdraw laws and rules requiring corporations to consider any
purposes other than the pursuit of profit. This includes the reduction or removal of taxes on corporations and their wealthy owners, which by definition are levied for the public good rather than the benefit of corporations, and result in decreased profit. The consequent unbridled pursuit of profit and decline in public revenue necessarily leads to reductions in social services and welfare programs. Liberalization refers to the removal of trade barriers, such as taxes on imports that attempt to keep the playing field level for laborers. It also requires eliminating laws inhibiting the exchange of international currencies, effectively turning currency markets into a global casino for wealthy investors. Finally, privatization denotes removing properties and services from public control (i.e. from governments) and turning them over to the “private sector” (to corporations and their owners). To all this, Mann (2013) adds that what is unprecedented in neoliberalism, compared to prior versions of capitalism, is the degree of globalization and financialization (the trade of financial instruments rather than goods and services), both of which are facilitated by the nearly instantaneous movement of capital made possible by the internet and other advanced communications technologies (pp. 143–148).
Even a superficial consideration of this summary of neoliberalization makes it easier to imagine how the changes in Port Clinton and Fort Payne, and other places across the country, have come to pass and are ultimately tied together. Considered as a political and economic agenda, the D-L-P formula, constructed specifically to increase profits for corporate elites, reduces both jobs and wages for average workers and results in ever-increasing economic inequality. Meanwhile, the “rational choice theory” embedded in Jones’s definition denies the importance, if not the existence, of the common good. This sort of belief, observe Häring and Douglas (2012), alleges “to show by means of scientific discourse that the concepts of ‘the public’ and ‘public interest’ or ‘general welfare’ [are] arbitrary and meaningless” (pp. 21–22). Thus the policies pursued by the D-L-P strategy intentionally attack the public good, both politically and economically. This is why David, interviewed by Putnam (2015), has no access to resources to help him gain legal assistance, education, or better employment. Finally, as Centeno and Cohen (2012) and others have shown, the process of neoliberalization is not limited to politics and economics. It is also a cultural project. It is a way of organizing human society based on the principles of individualism and competition (Brown, 2015; Dardot & Laval, 2009/2013, pp. 255–299; Davies, 2014). This subtly but steadily influences our attitudes and feelings toward ourselves,
including our understanding of what it means to be a “self,” as well as our dispositions and feelings toward others. Combined with the erosion of belief in the common good, this leaves us with a society in which each person increasingly looks after their own interests, and leaves others to look after theirs. Anyone not managing to compete is viewed with suspicion, if not with disdain. In the worst of cases, care itself, toward anyone but “one’s own,” becomes considered a weakness. This helps us understand why an otherwise reasonable individual such as Wendy, when interviewed by Putnam (2015), recoils at the thought of increasing public funding to help poorer kids in Port Clinton. She concludes: “If my kids are going to be successful, I don’t think they should have to pay other people who are sitting around doing nothing for their success” (p. 25). This is how inequality turns into class segregation. If we consider that this same attitude can be directed toward oneself, it may also shed light on why those who seek my counsel are now so filled with shame and self-blame. Perhaps they suffer from segregation within the soul.
WE ARE ALL NEOLIBERALS NOW: PASTORAL THEOLOGY, CARE, AND THE NATURALIZATION OF CAPITALISM
Given the sweeping and disturbing political, economic, and cultural effects of neoliberalization, particular features of which I will discuss in succeeding chapters, how have professionals dedicated to caring for human beings responded? More to the current point, how have those who theorize such care responded? The answer, at least in the United States and the wealthiest countries, is by and large “not very well.” The broader disciplines of psychology and psychotherapy have not only generally ignored these developments, but have largely served the interests of the new capitalism. I will not offer a critique of psychology and psychotherapy along these lines, for that has already been undertaken by the emergent field of critical psychology, especially as it is developing in the United Kingdom (e.g. Ingleby, 1980; Parker, 2007, 2015a, 2015b; Smail, 2005). Rather, I will focus here on my own field, pastoral care, and its theory, pastoral theology. Pastoral care and pastoral theology offer an interesting case, it turns out, for this discipline has historically been entrusted to articulate, preserve, and continually reinterpret the care of souls. Its deep roots in a religious tradition of care potentially enable it to gain some perspective on contemporary developments within capitalism.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
mean, that they did it as Juglers and those that use the Art of Legerde-main do, that is, by shewing one thing, and then by nimble sleight and agility convey it away, and suddainly and unperceiveably substitute another thing in its place, which they perform by leading the Eyes and attentions of the spectators another way with staring and using of strange and insignificant words, then we should be soon accorded, for so they might probably and easily have been performed as we shall prove anon, but this is not the thing they mean or intend. But some do mean that the Devil did only deceive the Phantasie and imagination of the beholders, in causing them to imagine and believe that the rods were changed into Serpents, when they were not changed at all, but only their imaginations deceived in thinking them to be Serpents when they were but only rods, as melancholy persons, Men in Feavers, Phrensies and Maniacal distempers do often think and affirm that they see strange things when they see no such things externally, but the Phantasie is only deceived with the species and images of those things within. This might be granted if Pharaoh and all the Spectators could be proved to be Men under those forenamed distempers and the like, though yet that might (and doth often) come to pass from meer natural causes, where the Devil hath nothing to do at all. But the beholders of these actions of the Magicians are neither proved, nor can rationally be supposed to be Men under any such distempers; but must be understood to be Men of several constitutions, tempers, and of sound health, and therefore not any way capable of any such illusions, neither could the Devil in a moment have so vitiated their imaginations, which we affirm he can no ways do, except the humours, fumes and spirits in the Body be first altered by natural causes, which cannot be done instantaneously, and if it could, then it would follow that no Man could certainly tell, when he were deceived in his imagination, when not: neither could it be, (as some imagine,) by casting a mist before their Eyes; for though Christ did hold the two Disciples Eyes going from Emaus, that they did not know him, it were blasphemous to think that Satan could do so also. And a mist casting before their Eyes might make them to see more dimly and confusedly, and cause things to appear greater than they were, but not to make one thing seem a quite contrary. But it never was yet proved that Satan could do such a thing, and what was never proved, may safely and rationally be denied. Some do suppose that the Devil did cloath or
cover the Magicians rods with some such vestment of an airy substance, as might make the rods appear to the eye like Serpents; but this is as groundless a whimsey as any of the rest, and as it hath no proof, so it needs no confutation.
Argum. 4. Hist. 1.
4. But to come more close to the matter, it is most plain and perspicuous that what they did was meerly by Art, or by Art and Nature joined with it; for if we may trust any thing to propriety of the words (as we have proved sufficiently before) they are called mechassephim, præstigiatores, that is Juglers, such as by sleight of hand, and nimble conveyance, could perform strange and wonderful things, and after they are called Hartummin, that is, Magicians, such as had skill in natural things, and by knowing their causes, and making due and timely application of them to passives that were suitable, could produce wonderful effects. And if we seriously consider the few things that they performed, they might easily be brought to pass by Leger-de-main alone. For, as for holding a rod in their hands, and seeming to throw it down upon the ground, how soon might they throw down an artificial Serpent in its stead, and immediately and unperceivedly make conveyance of the rod? And if it be thought difficult or impossible, I shall unriddle the mystery, as I have sometimes seen it performed, and is but thus. The Jugler that is to perform this feat is usually provided before-hand with a wiar so twined and wrested, that it may be pressed together with the little finger in the ball of the hand, and when let loose it will extend it self, like a spring, and make a pretty motion upon a Table, this is fitted with a suitable head, and a piece of neatly painted linnen, perfectly resembling a Serpent, with Eyes and all. This thus fitted he holdeth in his right hand betwixt his little finger, and the ball of his hand, then with his left hand he taketh up a little white rod that he hath upon the Table, with which he maketh people believe he performeth all his feats: And then telling them a Story to amuse them, that he will like Moses and Aaron, transform that rod into a Serpent, then he presently beginneth to stare about him, and to utter some strange and nonsensical words, as though he were invoking some Spirit or Goblin, and so immediately conveyeth the rod either into his lap (if sitting) or into his sleeve (if standing) and then lets loose the Serpent forth of his right hand with pushing it forward, that what with the wiar, and the nimble motion
of his hand, he maketh it to move a pretty space upon the Table, which he continueth, while offering with the one hand to catch it by the neck, he nimbly with the other puts it forward, and turneth it by touching the tail, and the mean while hisseth so cunningly, that the by-standers think it is the Serpent it self, and presently whips it up and conveys it into his pocket. And such a trick as this well acted might make Pharaoh and the beholders believe there was as much done, as Moses and Aaron did, but only that Aarons rod swallowed up their Serpents, or his Serpent theirs, which they might easily excuse. As for the changing water into blood, and the producing of Frogs, they were so easy to be done after the same manner, that they need not any particular explication, for by this the manner of their performance may most easily be understood. Though I once saw a Gentleman that was much delighted with these kind of tricks, and did himself play them admirable well, who performed it with a living Snake, that he had got for one of his Children to keep in a box; for in this North Countrey they are plentiful, and are also innoxious; and it might have deceived a very wary person. So that it is very foolish and absurd to bring in a Demon from Hell, or an Angel from Heaven, or a Soul from above, to solve a thing that seems strange and uncouth by, when the craft and cunning of Men (if duely considered and examined) are sufficient to perform the same, and much more.
Argum. 5.
5. And in this place of Exodus where our Translators say: and the Magicians did so or in like manner with their inchantments, the word being Belahatehem ought to have been rendered, suis laminis (as we have proved before) that is, with their bright plates of metal, for the word doth not signifie Inchantments in any one place in all the Old Testament. And if truth and reason may bear any sway at all, it must be understood that they were deeply skilled in natural and lawful Magick (as generally the Ægyptians and the Eastern Nations were) though they did use and apply it to an evil end, namely the resisting the power of Gods miracles wrought by Moses and Aaron: and so by this word suis laminis, with their plates of Metal must be understood, Metalline bright plates framed under certain fit constellations, and insculped with certain figures, by which naturally (without any Diabolical assistance) they did perform strange things, and made the shapes of some things appear to the eye. And though we may be derided and laughed to scorn by the ignorant, or hardly
taxed and censured by the greatest part of Cynical Criticks, yet we cannot so far stifle the knowledge of our own brains, nor be so cowardly in maintaining the truth, but we must assert, That anciently there hath been a certain lawful art, whereby some sorts of metals might be mixed together under a due constellation, and after ingraven in like fit Planetary times with sundry figures, that would naturally work strange things; And this piece of learning though it may justly be numbred amongst the Desiderata, and might very well have been placed in the Catalogue of the Deperdita of Pancirollus; yet was it well known unto the ancient Magicians, and by them often with happy success put into practise; And amongst those many noble attempts of that most learned and experienced (though much condemned) person Paracelsus, this part of learning was not the least, that he laboured to restore. The truth of which we thus prove.
Argum. 1. Exerc. 196. 6. p. 637.
Cap. 2.
Vid. Gaffarel Unheard of curiosities, p. 165. &c.
Hist. 3.
1. That there have been formerly in the World many such like planetary Sigills or Talismans, (as the Persians called them) is manifest from the authority of divers Authors of good credit and account. For the learned and most acute Julius Scaliger relateth this saying: “The novelty of this History also may sharpen the wits of the studious. In the Books of the Arabick Ægyptians (he saith) it is thus written. That Hameth Ben Thaulon the Governour of Ægypt for the Arabians did command that a certain leaden Image or Picture of a Crocodile, which was found in the ground-work of a certain Temple, should be melted in the fire. From which time the inhabitants did complain, that those Countreys were more infested with Crocodiles than before, against whose mischief that Image had been framed, and buried there by the more ancient Wise-men or Magicians. Junctin, upon the Sphear of Sacrobosco, affirms that his Master who was a Carmelite, named Julianus Ristorius à Prato, one that was not any whit superstitious, was intreated by a Friend of his to make one of these Images for the cure of the Cramp, which he was very much subject to. This learned Man resenting his Friends sufferings, taught him the
Hist. 1.
Hist. 2.
Epist. ad Vazet.
Hist. 4. Ut supra p. 164.
manner how to make one: so that he, not content to make only one, made divers of them when the Moon was in the Sign Cancer; and that with so good success, and with such certainty, as that he immediately found the benefit of it. Confecit (saith he) plures imagines, pro se, & amicis suis: quibus effectis, unam pro se accepit, & liberatus est. The same he reports of a certain Florentine, a very Pious Man, who made one of these Talismans, for to drive away the Gnats, which he did with good success. Nicolaus Florentinus, (saith he) Vir religiosus fecit in una constellatione annulum ad expellendum culices, quas vulgo Zanzaras dicimus, sub certis & determinatis imaginibus; & usus fuit constellatione Saturni infortunati, & expulit culices.” Another Story take from an Arabick Cosmographer, cited by Joseph Scaliger thus: “This Talisman (he saith) is to be seen in the Countrey of Hamptz, in a City bearing the same name; and it is only the Figure of a Scorpion graved upon one of the Stones in a certain Tower; which is of so great virtue, as that it suffers not any, either Serpent or Scorpion to come within the City. And if any one, for experiment sake, bring one of these out of the field into the City, it is no sooner at the Gate, but that it dies suddenly. This Figure hath this virtue besides; that when any one is stung with a Scorpion, or bitten by any other Serpent, they need but take the Image of the Stone with a little clay, and apply it to the wound, and it is instantly healed.” Unto which Mr. Gaffarel addeth this: “If any one doubt (saith he) of the credit of this Cosmographer, he may yet adventure to believe Mr. de Breves, as having been an eye-witness of the like experiment: who says in his Travels, that at Tripoli a City of Syria, within a Wall that reacheth from the Sea-side to the Gate of the City, there is a certain inchanted stone; on which is figured, in Relief, or by way of Imbossment, the Figure of a Scorpion, which was there placed by a Magician, for to drive away Venomous Beasts, which infested this Province, as the Serpent of Brass in the Hippodromus at Constantinople did. And a little above the City, there is a certain Cave, which is full of the Carkasses and Bones of Serpents, which died at that time.” And further Gaffarel saith: “Now whereas he calls this an inchanted Stone, and says that it was placed there by a Magician, you must note, that he there speaks according to the sense of the inhabitants, who knew not how to give any other account of the thing, as not understanding any thing at all of the natural reason of it.”
Observat.
Communicat. 7. p. 329.
De simpl. medic. facul. p. 1076.
Deut. 33. 13, 14.
Argum. 2.
2. And that the election of fit times according to the Configuration of the Stars and Planets, is of great efficacy and virtue, is sufficiently known to Husbandmen and Sailers, and of no small power both in respect of natural and artificial things, as we shall shew in this instance. Lazarus Riverius who was Counsellor and Physician to the French King, a person of extraordinary learning and experience in the Medical profession, both in the Galenical and Chymical way, doth give us this relation saying: “I have not seldom experienced, and I have many witnesses of this thing, that Peony gathered under its proper Constellation, to wit, the Moon inclining (inclinante) being in Aries, doth loose the Epilepsie, by application alone: for the middle and chief root divided by the greater Longitude, I have (he saith) compassed about the neck and the armes of a certain Virgin in the Hospital, of eighteen years of age, who had been afflicted with this Disease from her childhood, and had the Paroxysmes every day; but from that day seemed altogether to be cured. From whence it is manifest how greatly the observation of the Stars is to be esteemed of in the Art of Medicine.” Agreeable unto which is the judgment of that Industrious person Galen, who affirmeth that Peony by appension doth cure the Epilepsie, though he declare not the fit time for its collection. From whence it is most clear that the careful and precise observation of the Heavenly influences is most necessary to a Physician, and to all others that would produce strange and desired effects. Therefore doth learned Schroderus tell us this concerning the power and efficacy of those influences, saying: “The influences of the Stars are effluvia, or Steams endowed with peculiar faculties, by which they make strong (if they be in their strength and vigour) things that are familiar to them, and do prosper and promote their virtues; but on the contrary they debilitate, hinder and make worse things that are not agreeable to them.” And this is that which Moses fully mentioneth in these words, as they are fitly rendred by Arias Montanus. Et ad Joseph dixit, Benedicta Domini terra ejus, de delicia Cœlorum, de rore, & de voragine cubante deorsum: & de delicia proventuum Solis, & de delicia ejectionis lunarum. Which
Hist. 5.
Pharm. med. Chym. c. 9. p. 24.
our Translation gives thus: And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath; And for the precious fruits brought forth by the Sun, and for the precious things put forth by the Moon. The full evidence of the truth of these influences of the Stars, and necessity and utility for due and proper seasons for the collection of Flowers, Fruits, Roots and Plants, may be seen in that learned piece that Bartholomæus Carichterus Chief Physician to Maximilian the Second, writ and dedicated to his Master in the German Tongue. As also, what is written in the same Language by those learned Germans, Johannes Pharamundus Rhumelius, and Israel Hebueras that learned Mathematician, in a Treatise which he calleth, Mysterium Sigillorum herbarum & lapidum, which do compleatly verifie the certain efficacy and virtue of Planetary Seals, Images or Figures.
Argum. 3. Usefulness of Exper. Phil. c. 10. p. 207.
Hist. 6. De Gemm. & Lapid. l. 1. c. 23.
Mod. Intrand. p. 604.
3. These things are confirmed by the effects of appensions of many natural things which produce strange and wonderful effects, some of which we shall give in the words of that honourable person Mr. Boyl, who saith: “That great cures may be done by bare outward applications, you will scarce deny if you disbelieve not the relations which are made us by learned men concerning the efficacy of the Lapis Nephriticus, only bound upon the Pulses of the wrists (chiefly that of the left hand) against that stubborn and Anomalous disease the Stone. And that which gives the more credit to these relations is; That not only the judicious Anselmus Boetius de Boot seems to prize it, but the famous Monardes professeth himself, not to write by hear-say of the great virtues of this Indian Stone, but to have made tryal of it himself upon persons of very high quality: And that which is related by Monardes is much less strange than those almost incredible things which are with many circumstances delivered of that Stone, by the learned Chymist Vutzerus. And although it must be acknowledged that some Stones that go under that name have been ineffectually applied in Nephritick Distempers.
De Lapid. & Gemm. l. 2. c. 11.
De Lapid. & Gemm. l. 2. p. 102.
Yet the accurate Johannes de Laet himself furnisheth us with an answer to that objection, informing us that many of those Nephritick Stones (which differ much in colour, though the best are wont to be greenish) although not at all counterfeited or sophisticated are of little or no virtue. But that yet there are some others of them which can scarce be distinguished from the former, but by tryal upon Nephriticks, which are of wonderful efficacy, as he himself hath more than once tryed in his own Wife. Garcias ab orta mentions a Stone found in Balagat, called Alaqueca; of which he tells us, that though it be cheap: Hujus tamen virtus (to use his own words) reliquarum Gemmarum facultates exuperat, quippe qui sanguinem undequaq; fluentem illico sistat. Monardes (cap. 35.) relates the great virtues of a Stone against Hysterical suffocations, and concludes; Cum uteri suffocationem imminentem præsentiunt, adhibito lapide subitò levantur, & si eum perpetuò gestant (Hysterici) nunquam simili morbo corripiuntur: exempla hujusmodi faciunt ut his rebus fidem adhibeam. The same Author in the next Chapter, treating of the Lapis Sanguinaris or Blood-stone, found in New Spain (having told us, that the Indians do most confidently believe, that if the flesh of any bleeding part be touched with this Stone, the bleeding will thereby be stanched) adds this memorable observation of his own: Vidimus nonnullos hæmorrhoidum fluxu afflictos remedium sensisse, annulos ex hoc lapide confectos in digito continue gestando; nec non & menstruum fluxum sisti. And to these for brevity sake, we shall only mention the virtues of the Jasper, which is blood-red throughout the whole body of the Stone, which Boetius de Boot of his own experience doth avouch in several trials to have stopped Fluxes of Blood, only by bare appension: As also the child of a famous Chymical writer, who had his child (supposed to be bewitched) cured by hanging a piece of that Noble Mineral by Paracelsus called electrum minerale immaturum, of which Helmont tells us this: Imprimis electrum minerale immaturum Paracelsi, collo appensum, liberat, quos spiritus immundus persequitur, quod ipse vidi. Illius potum verò plures à veneficiis solvisse, memini. Nemo autem, qui appenso illo simplici, non præcaverit, ne injecta intromittantur: vel ab importunis ligationibus confestim non solvatur.” All which do manifest the great and wonderful virtues, that God hath endowed Stones, Minerals, Plants and Roots withal,
that the Devil need not be brought in to be an adjutant or operator in their effects.
4. And it is also manifest that Metals may be so artificially in fit
Argum. 4. Ut supra. 209.
Helm. de Febr. c. 2. Paracels. in Archidox. mag. l. 6 p. 714.
Constellations commixed together, that their effects will be rare and stupendious, as the aforesaid honourable person doth transcribe and relate to us in these words: “What Monardes, (he saith) mentions of the virtue of the Lapis Sanguinaris to cure Hemorrhoidal Fluxes, puts me in mind of a yet much stranger thing, which Helmont affirms, namely, That he could make a metal, of which if a Ring were worn, the pain of the Hæmorrhoids would be taken away, in the little time requisite to recite the Lords Prayer; and within twenty four hours the Hæmorrhoids themselves, as well internal as external, how protuberant soever, would vanish, and the restagnant blood would (as he speaks) be received again into favour, and be restored to a good condition. The same Ring he also commends in the suffocation and irregular motion of the Womb, and divers other Diseases: But if Paracelsus be in any case to be credited in an unlikely matter, we may think by his very solemn protestations that he speaks upon his own experience, that he had a Ring made of a metalline substance, by him called electrum, (which by his description seems to be a mixture of all the metals joined together under certain constellations) which was of far greater virtue than this of Helmont, For, hoc loco (says he) non possum non indicare admirandas quasdam vires virtutesq; electri nostri, quas fieri his nostris oculis vidimus, adeoq; cum bona veritatis conscientiâ præferre attestariq; possumus. Vidimus enim hujus generis annulos, quos qui induit, hunc nec spasmus convulsit, nec Paralysis corripuit, nec dolor ullus torsit, similiter nec Apoplexia, nec Epilepsia invasit. Et si annulus hujusmodi Epileptici digito annulari, etiam in Paroxysmo sævissimo, insertus fuit, remittente illicò Paroxysmo, æger à lapsu illico resurrexit, &c.” And though Mr. Boyle a person of a perspicuous judgment, and of a great understanding, doth seem to question his authority with a kind of dubitation, being in probability staggered by the groundless censures of his greatest adversaries; yet we must affirm that it is very hard that his veracity and experience (which was as great as any Mans) should be undervalued, by reason
of the ignorance and idleness of those that judge him: who were never able in regard of their ignorance to understand the meaning of his mystical and dark way of writing, nor because of their supine negligence had ever made trial of those things he treateth of, with that curious diligence and care that is requisite to accomplish such occult effects withal; not considering that, Dii sua bona laboribus vendunt. But notwithstanding this, and the monstrous lies and horrid calumnies of that pitiful Rapsodist Athanasius Kircherus, we shall add one testimony more from the same Author, which in English runs thus: “Also (he saith) I cannot here pass over one great wonder, which I saw performed in Spain of a great Negromancer, who had a Bell not exceeding the weight of two pounds which as oft as he did Ring, he could allure and stir up many and various Apparitions and Visions of Spirits. For when he lift he did describe certain words and characters in the inward superficies of the Bell: After if he did beat and ring it, forthwith the Spirits (for shapes) did come forth or appear of what form or shape soever he desired. He could also by the sound of the same Bell, either draw unto him or drive from him many other Visions and Spirits, as also Men and Beasts, as I have seen many of these performed by him with mine own eyes. But whensoever he did begin any new thing, so oft he did renew the words and Characters also. But notwithstanding he would not reveal (he saith) unto me, those secrets of the words and characters, until I my self more deeply weighing and considering the matter, at last by chance found them forth. Which notwithstanding, and the examples of which I here studiously do conceal. But it is not obscurely to be noted here, that there was more of moment in the Bell, than in the words: For this Bell was certainly and altogether compounded or made of this our Electrum.”
Argum. 5. In Verb. Herb. & lapid. mag. vis est. p. 579.
5. And that there are great and hidden virtues both in Plants and Minerals, especially in Metals and Precious Stones as they are by Nature produced by Mystical Chymistry prepared and exalted, or commixed and insculped in their due and fit constellations, may not only be proved by the instances
Vid. lib. de Doctr. promisc. c. 24. p. 187. De secret. oper. artis & natur. c. 2. Paracels. Archidox. magic. lib. 1.
foregoing, but also by the reasons and authorities of persons of great judgment and experience in the secrets of nature, of which we shall here recite some few. And first that learned and observant person Baptista van Helmont tells us thus much: “But this one thing (he saith) I willingly admit: To wit, that metals do by many degrees surpass Plants and Minerals in the art of healing. And therefore that metals are certain shining glasses, not by reason of the brightness; but rather that as often as they are opened, and their virtues set at liberty, they act by a dotal light, and a vital contact. Therefore metals do operate, by a manner attributed to the Stars, to wit by aspect, and the attraction of an alterative biass or motion. For the metals themselves are glasses, I say the best off-spring of the inferiour Globe, upon which the whole central force, by some former ages, hath prodigally poured out its treasure, that it might espouse most richly, this liquor, this sweat, and this off-spring of Divine Providence, unto those ends which the weakness of nature did require. But (he saith) I call them shining glasses, which have the power of penetrating and illuminating the Archeus, from its errors, furies and defects.” Neither are those arguments of that learned person Galeottus Martius, for defending the natural and lawful effects of Planetary Sigills, when prepared forth of agreeable matter, and made in their due constellations, of such small weight as some insipid ignorants have pretended, but are convincing to any considerate and rational person, as this one may manifest, where he is speaking of the Figure of a Lion ingraven in a Golden Plate in these words: “The Figure of a Lion (he saith) insculped in the fit hours, in a right constellation, doth not act, but doth bring the beginning of the action, as S. Thomas and Albertus magnus do testifie: not as a Figure and Image impressed Mathematically, but that it may effect this or that preparation in the thing figured: which may in divers moods receive the Celestial action without difficulty: Because if the Image of a Dog, or an Horse, or some other Animal were insculped in a Golden Plate, there would not be that disposition of the matter, which doth accompany the Image of a Lion &c. From whence (he saith) we conclude, that this aptitude to draw in the Celestial virtue in the Figure, is not as Figure, but as the Gold is formed more dense or thin, by the condition of the Image. For even in looking-glasses, the variety of the Figure, doth bring a most vast difference. For how much a Concave doth differ from a gibbous Looking-glass, is even
known unto old Wives.” Of these things also our learned Countreyman Roger Bacon, who was second to none in the secrets of Art and Nature, doth teach us thus much: “But they who know in fit constellations, to do their works according to the configurations of the Heavens; they may not only dispose Characters, but all their operations, both of Art and Nature, agreeable to the Celestial virtues. But because it is difficult in these things to know the certitude of Celestials; therefore in these there is much error with many; and there are few that know to order any thing profitably and truly.” But we shall shut up this particular with that memorable and irrefragable responsion of Paracelsus to the common objection, which in English runs thus: “But (he saith) they will thus urge; how comes it to pass, I pray thee, that Metals, with their assigned Characters, Letters and Names, should perform such things, unless they be prepared and made by Magical and Diabolical power intervening? But (he saith) to these I return this answer. Therefore thou believest (as I hear) that if such things be made by the help of the Devil, then they may have their force and operations. But should not thou rather believe this? that also the Creator of Nature, God who dwelleth in the Heavens, is so powerful, that he in like manner can give and confer these virtues and operations to Metals, Roots, Herbs, Stones and such like things? As though forsooth the Devil were more strong, more wise, more omnipotent, and more powerful than the only Eternal, Omnipotent and Merciful God, who hath created and exalted their degrees, even of all these aforesaid Metals, Stones, Herbs, Roots and all other such like things that are above, or within the Earth, and do live and vegetate in the Water or Air, for the health and commodity of Man?”
This argument we desire that any of the Witchmongers or Demonographers should answer, ere they conclude so strongly for the power of Devils and Witches.
Exod. 8. 19.
So we conceive we have sufficiently proved that what Pharaohs Magicians did perform, might rationally, and probably be brought to pass by Natural Magick or confederacy, and sleight of hand, without any other Diabolical assistance than what was mental and spiritual in regard of the end, which was the resisting of Moses. And by all they did, as in changing their Rods, bringing in of Frogs and changing Water into Blood, it doth not rationally appear, that they had any
supernatural assistance, for then they could not have been so amazed at the miracle of turning the Dust into Lice; for what skill did the Devil want that he could not perform this? If by his power the former things were brought to pass, could there be more difficulty in doing of this, than in the bringing of Frogs? Neither could their Legierdemain have failed them but that they were surprized, and taken unawares, being not provided to play all kind of tricks, but only some few for which they had made provision. And so to excuse their own inability, they cryed out, this is the finger of God; a pitiful shift to excuse their own knavery, and couzenage, for there could be no more of the finger of God in this than the former, but only a shift to put off their own shame.
Another place from whence they would draw arguments to maintain the power of the Devil and Witches, is the Story of Balaam in the Book of Numbers, from whence in the first place they would conclude that he used wicked and Diabolical Divinations, and that by words he could either bless or curse. In answer to which we shall give these pressive reasons.
Numb. 22. 6.
Reas. 1.
Numb. 23. 8, 23.
1. Though it might be granted that he used Divinations that were not lawful, yet what is that to a killing and murthering Witch? Surely nothing at all. And though Balak believed that whosoever he blessed were blessed, and whosoever he cursed, were cursed, and therefore fetched him so far, yet there is nothing apparent to prove that Balaam could do any such matter, and from Balaks belief to Balaams performances proceedeth no argument, for his belief that he could either bless or curse, did not confer any power to Balaam to produce such effects withall. And Balaams blessings, or cursings might be intentional, and declarative, but could not be effective, for he confesseth a great piece of truth: How should he curse, whom God had not cursed, or how should he defie, whom the Lord had not defied? He might have done it verbally, but it would have been frustrate, and to no effect, and therefore he concluded: Surely there was no inchantment against Jacob, nor no Divination against Israel.
2. And though it be said, that he
Chap. 24. 1.
Reas. 2.
went not as at other times, to meet Auguries (for as we have before shewed, the word doth properly signifie that) It must be understood, and is manifest that at the former times he went to attend solitarily what the Lord would say unto him, and those two times that he went before was only to meet the Lord, to hear and receive what he would say unto him. But here he did not, nor had need to go, for the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he took up his Parable, and prophesied. Where though his going to meet the Lord, be called to meet Divinations, yet it cannot be taken in the worse sense, for unlawful Divinations, but for such as were sent him and taught him by God, by Visions, Angels, Trances, or other such like wayes as God in those times used to reveal his Will to his Prophets by: For from first to last, it appeareth that he neither professed, nor did (in this case) utter any thing but what the Lord commanded him, and so was no false Prophet.
Reas. 3. Numb. 22. 18.
Ibid c. 24. 4, 16. Vid. Caten. Aur. Tho. Aquin. p. 10.
3. He was no false Prophet, that is, he had, nor used any Divinations, but what he had from God, is most clear from these particulars. 1. When Balak first sent messengers unto him, his responsion was: If Balak would give me his house full of Silver and Gold I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more. “Whereby it is apparent that he feared the Lord Jehovah, and calls him his God, thereby shewing the confidence that he had in him, and that he acknowledged him for his only God. 2. In the whole transaction of the business betwixt him and Balak, he never took upon him to declare any thing, but what the Lord would say unto him, neither did he at all vary from the same in the least tittle.” 3. He confesseth all along, that he had his eyes opened, and that he heard the words of God, and had seen the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open. And these were things that were not peculiar to any, but such as were the true Prophets of the Lord Jehovah. 4. The truth of his Prophecie, which was of the Kingdom of Christ, and the Glory and Dominion of it, with the prosperity of his people, doth plainly evince that he was a true Prophet of the Lord, and that his Divinations came from the Almighty. And this caused S. Hierome, and some other of the Fathers believe, that by this Prophecie of Balaam, the Magi or Wise men
were directed, to come to Hierusalem to seek and worship Christ the Saviour of the World.
2 Pet. 2. 15, 16.
Revel. 2. 14.
1 Kings 13.
Reas. 4.
Jude 11.
Jonah 1. 3. & 4. 1.
4. Though this Prophet fell into hainous crimes, and enormous sins, as tempting of God, who when the first Messengers came from Balak unto him, was positively commanded not to go with them, and yet as though God would change his mind entertained them again, whereby Gods anger was kindled against him. And though he was drawn to love the wages of unrighteousness, and so was rebuked by the dumb Ass, and though he taught Balak to lay a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, and therefore had that judgment to be slain among the Midianites: Yet none of these do conclude at all, that therefore he used Diabolical Divinations, or had not what he declared from Divine Revelation, no more than the flying of Jonah to Tarshish, when he was commanded to go to preach against Nineveh, or his repining at Gods mercy shewed to that great City, manifested him to be a lying Prophet, or to use devilish Divination. Neither the Prophets being seduced, that cried against the altar at Bethel, before Jeroboam, by the old Prophet, and his being slain in the way by a lion, & his carkase left there, did at all argue that his Prophecie was false, or that he had not his message from God, but they only shew, that even those that have been truly inspired by God and been truly taught by him, have notwithstanding often disobeyed him, and have had therefore fearful temporal judgments faln upon them, and yet no argument that they used unlawful Divinations.
From hence also the Witchmongers use to urge a frivolous and groundless argument which is this; that the Angel did speak in Balaams Ass, and therefore the Devil may speak in a Dog, or a Cat to a Witch, but this is confuted by these reasons.
Reas. 1.
1. What the Angel did there was by command and commission from God, but we never read, nor can it be proved that the Devil is sent upon such idle, and ordinary errands, to work a miracle, to speak in a Dog, or a Cat, to a Witch; for God doth not work wonders for any such wicked and abominable ends. And if he be not sent of God, he cannot of himself perform any such matter, who could not enter into the
Swine, without Christs leave and order; but is kept in chains of everlasting darkness, from whence he is not loosed, but when God sends him as an instrument to accomplish his will, which is always for good and just ends, and not for such execrable and wicked purposes.
Numb. 22. 26, 27. Verse 28.
2. They take up a false supposition, for the Angel was not in the Ass either essentially, or effectively, for at the very instant that the Ass spoke, the Angel was standing in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left, and then seeing the Angel of the Lord she fell down under Balaam, and spoke, and the Angel could not both stand in the narrow way and likewise be in the Ass, in the same moment of time, except we should grant that absurdity that a creature may be in two distinct places at one and the self same time, which was never yet allowed to any created being. But they openly belie, and falsifie the words of the Text, for it doth not say that the Angel spoke in the Ass, but that the Lord, (the word is Jehovah) opened the mouth of the Ass. So that (we suppose) here is enough demonstrated that from none of the places of Scriptures hitherto enumerated, any colourable grounds can be drawn to uphold those particulars that we have laboured to confute, and therefore we shall pass to another Chapter.
CHAP. VIII.
Of the Woman of Endor that pretended to raise up Samuel, and of some other places in the Scriptures, not handled yet, and of some other objections.
Concerning the Woman of Endor, that our English and many other Translators have falsly rendered a Witch, or a Woman that had a familiar Spirit, we have spoken sufficiently, where we treated of the signification of the word Ob. And there have shewed plainly, that she is only called the Mistriss of the bottle, or of the Oracle, and that what she there did, or pretended to do, was only by Ventriloquy, or casting her self into a feigned Trance lay groveling upon the earth with her face downwards, and so changing her voice did mutter and murmur, and peep and chirp like a bird coming forth of the shell, or that she spake in some hollow Cave or Vault, through some Pipe, or in a Bottle, and so amused and deceived poor timerous and despairing Saul, or had a confederate apparelled like Samuel to play his part, and that it was neither Samuels Body, Soul, nor no Ghost or Devil, but only the cunning and Imposture of the Woman alone, or assisted with a confederate. And though this might be amply satisfactory to all sound and serious judgments, especially if hereunto be added what Mr. Scot, Mr. Ady, Mr. Wagstaff, and the learned Authors of the Dialogue of Spirits and Devils have written upon this subject: yet because we have promised before to speak something of the History and matter of fact, and that Mr. Glanvil a Minister of our English Church hath of late espoused the quarrel, we shall confute his arguments and clear the case as fully as in reason can be required, and that in these particulars following.
1. The certain and infallible
Confid. about Witchcraft, p. 8.
1 Sam. 3. 19. Id. c. 7. v. 13.
prophecies of Samuel so punctually coming to pass according as he foretold them, for it is said: And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground; were manifestly known to all Israel, as in the case of the destruction of Eli, and his house, and by the overthrow of the Philistines at Eben-ezer, and in the anointing of Saul to be King, and in the case of sending Thunder and Lightning in Harvest time, and such like. And as these were publickly known unto all Israel, and they had seen, and tryed what infallible certainty followed upon them, so it was as generally known, that Samuel had told Saul that God had rejected him from being King over Israel, and that he had anointed David to be King in his stead; and therefore any rational Man, that knew these things, and also saw that David prospered in all things that he did, and that it was quite otherwise with Saul, might certainly know that the Kingdome would be transferred from him unto David, and so there needed neither spirit nor Devil be fetched up to predict this, being sufficiently known unto all, of which also the Woman at Endor could not be ignorant as a thing of concern to her, especially in the point of her practise which was meer couzenage and Imposture. And therefore Mr. Glanvils argument concludes nothing, where he saith: “And this Samuel truly foretold his approaching fate, viz. That Israel should be delivered with him into the hands of the Philistines, and that on the morrow he, and his Sons should be in the state of the dead, which doubtless is meant by the expression that [they should be with him:] which contingent particulars, how could the couzener, and her confederate foretel, if there were nothing in it extraordinary and preternatural?” To answer which we say, that there was no contingent particular that was foretold, but Mr. Glanvil might have foretold it, if he had been there, and known but that which was publickly divulged in Israel, without incurring the danger of being reputed a Witch or a Diviner.
Isa. 63. 16.
1. Because Samuels prophecies were certainly known to come to pass, and he had openly declared, that the Kingdom should be rent from Saul, and given to David. 2. She or her confederate might have guessed as much, because of the extream fear and consternation that Saul was in, for heartless and fearful Generals seldom or never win Battels. 3. Because that he confessed that God had forsaken him, and when he saw the hoast of the Philistines, he was afraid and his heart greatly
trembled, and those that God doth forsake cannot prosper. 4. The word to morrow in the Hebrew doth not precisely denote the day following, but the time to come, so that how true soever Mr. Glanvil may think it, there was but a piece of ambiguous Equivocation in it, for it cannot be made out that it was fought the very next day, neither were all Sauls Sons slain with him, at that very time. 5. And if nothing must be supplied but meerly what is totidem verbis in the Text (as he urgeth against Mr. Scot) then how will it be proved, that the Phrase (to morrow thou and thy Sons shall be with me) is to be understood of the state of the dead, seeing the words (if literally to be taken) do imply a locality, not a state or condition? 6, But if it be supposed to be the Devil, how comes he to know contingencies so certainly? It is a thing that is easily affirmed, but was never yet sufficiently proved. For if it be said he gathered it from the Prophecie of Samuel, so might the Witch have done without any assistance of a Devil. 7. And if he take it to be Samuels Soul (as he seems to hold) how come departed Souls to know, and foresee what contingent effects are to fall out here below? Where reads he or finds any such Divinity except in Popish Authors? But he may consult the Text: Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not.
1 Sam. 9. 2. & 10. 23.
2. That this Woman was a meer dissembling and lying cheater, and used nothing but Imposture, is manifest from these reasons. 1. Because that she was but of the same Crew and Stamp that Manasseh, and Ahab set up, is most plain, but they were meer Impostors and deceivers pretending to divine for other persons, and in other matters, but could not foresee their own destruction, and therefore in probability she was of the same practice. 2. Because she falsly faigned that she knew not Saul, of whom she could not be ignorant, he being so publickly known, and seen, and was taller by the head and shoulders than any man in Israel. 3. If she had not known that it had been Saul, when he came to her at the first, she would never have relyed upon his oath when he swore by Jehovah, for there was none but the King that could protect her from destruction. 4. She must needs be a most notorious dissembling cheater, because she pretended to call up any, for she said: whom shall I bring up unto thee? which is most certainly false, she had no such universal power, no nor all the Devils in Hell, if they had all assisted her. 5. She did
plainly dissemble, for the Text saith, and when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a loud voice; now if she saw Samuel (whom he could not but know) why did she answer to Saul, when he asked, what sawest thou? She answered, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. Let Mr. Glanvil, and all men judge if this be not gross and palpable lying, Gods is plural, but Samuel was but one.
1 Sam. 15. 23, 27.
1 Sam. 16. 14.
1 Sam. 28. 6.
3. As it is manifest that this Woman was an active deceiver, and one that intended to cheat and couzen, so it is as plain that Saul was in a condition fit to be deluded, and imposed upon, even by those that had been less cunning and skilful than she was in the craft of cheating, which is apparent from these reasons. 1. The Spirit of the Lord was departed from him, and consequently, Wisdom, Prudence and Discretion, and so that which should have guided his Will, Affections and Actions in the right way, had totally left him. And when these are gone, what is man, but a fit instrument to undergo and suffer even the worst and lowest of delusions and abuses? 2. The Spirit of the Lord had not only left him, but an evil Spirit from the Lord was come upon him that vexed and terrified him. And to what madness, folly and wickedness is not he subject to, who is led by the Spirit of lies and darkness? 3. The Lord had openly declared, that because he had rejected the word of the Lord, therefore the Lord had rejected him from being King over Israel, and that the Kingdom should be rent from him, and given to one more worthy than him. Now what despondency of mind, what torture and vexation of Spirit must needs be in him, that having been a King, is thus threatned to have his Kingdom rent from him and given to another, is easy to be imagined. 4. He must needs be under a most fearful consternation of mind not only because of these things named, but especially having before in his dangers and straights received counsel and advice from the Lord, though he now inquired of the Lord, yet the Lord answered him neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets. The Lord answered him not by dreams; for the union and converse that had been betwixt him and the Lord before, was now broken by reason of his Sins and Rebellion. Neither did the Lord answer him by Urim, for the Urim was not in the possession then of Saul, but of David, Chap. 23. 6, 9. Neither did the Lord answer him by Prophets, for Samuel had left him, after his last denouncing judgment against
