human
till the more extensive introduction of the art of printing partly dissipated the illusion. It has been remarked, therefore, that the existence of the parent stock of the subject more immediately under our consideration, witchcraft, may be traced to a very remote period indeed. It is, however, needless to enter into any remarks on those witches mentioned in the Scriptures. The earliest dabbler of the _genus_, as a contemporary writer observes, is said to be Zoroaster, thought to be the king of the Bactrians, who flourished about 3,800 years ago, or A.M. 2000. He is supposed to have been well versed in the arts of divination and astrology, and was the origin of the Persian magi.
gpt
At his birth, remarks an old writer,
human
The _magi_ in Persia, the Brahmins in India, the Chaldae in Assyria, the magicians of Arabia, the priesthood of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and the Druids of Britain, were all members of a class which comprised astrology, omens, divination, conjuration, portents, chiromancy, and sorcery; and all united in the pursuit of enslaving mankind for the purposes of gain and power, with artfully devised schemes, and a skilful series of impostures; and we can easily imagine the influence they must have exercised over the minds of their proselytes, when we bear in mind the effect produced by similar contrivances in later days. The enchantress Theoris of Athens seems to have been the first witch that had recourse to charms. Demosthenes uses the terms both of witchery and imposture in speaking of her. This witch was put to death by the Athenians--an accomplice having displayed to them the charms, &c., by which she wrought her miracles. Our Saviour's words, that _faith_ can remove mountains, are applicable particularly to the supposed powers of witchcraft; and the influence of charms and amulets in averting disease is well known. We have alluded, in our first paper, to the trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, at Norwich, for witchcraft; and we now give the speech of Sir Thomas Browne, the celebrated physician of that period, (1664,) to whom, in consequence of defect in the proof, the case was referred, which was the cause of their conviction. Sir Thomas Browne offered it as his opinion,