Indeed, Holland was keen to stress as early as 1590 that contemporary witchcraft was referenced by scripture “in generall”. It is in this way, Sharpe argues, that the notion of the covenant fitted into a wider Protestant ideology which conceptualised the world as consisting of binary opposites. Whilst Ethan Shagan has asserted that the divines of early modern England commonly sought a ‘via media’ in their beliefs, Patrick Collinson has convincingly argued instead for the central role of inversion. Here, ‘inversion’ means the demonic ‘opposite’ or ‘reflection’ of Christian and godly practices. This is especially evident in early Stuart covenantal-beliefs. Cooper, for instance, argued that “as God has a covenant with man, so will Satan have
…show more content…
This satanic pact was generally understood to represent an inversion of the ritual of Baptism, which God had created to “bind his seruants vnto his obedience”; as Satan’s relationship with the witch inverted and reflected this, it logically followed that he would have his own covenant. These ideas, however, led to a confusing conflation of two prominent ideologies. On the one hand, Satan was an evil threat, at war with God’s kingdom so as to establish his own demonic realm. Yet on the other, God had ultimate control over the world, including Satan and his forces of evil; to argue otherwise was to adopt a dualist position and fall into the heresy of Manicheanism. Hence, in Protestant ideology, the Devil, and thus the witch, could only carry out evil acts because God allowed them to, as He ultimately “rule[d] ouer Deuils…[and]…his instruments, Witches and Sorcerers”. That the witch could go no further than God’s command was commonly proved by reference to the Magicians of Egypt, who competed against Moses in a battle of miracles until God “retained them, and then they could do no more”. Thus, when considered within the wider demonological mentality of Stuart England, the reasoning behind the satanic covenant becomes clearer. Whilst the pact had next to no basis in scripture, indirectly the Bible’s influence is
This satanic pact was generally understood to represent an inversion of the ritual of Baptism, which God had created to “bind his seruants vnto his obedience”; as Satan’s relationship with the witch inverted and reflected this, it logically followed that he would have his own covenant. These ideas, however, led to a confusing conflation of two prominent ideologies. On the one hand, Satan was an evil threat, at war with God’s kingdom so as to establish his own demonic realm. Yet on the other, God had ultimate control over the world, including Satan and his forces of evil; to argue otherwise was to adopt a dualist position and fall into the heresy of Manicheanism. Hence, in Protestant ideology, the Devil, and thus the witch, could only carry out evil acts because God allowed them to, as He ultimately “rule[d] ouer Deuils…[and]…his instruments, Witches and Sorcerers”. That the witch could go no further than God’s command was commonly proved by reference to the Magicians of Egypt, who competed against Moses in a battle of miracles until God “retained them, and then they could do no more”. Thus, when considered within the wider demonological mentality of Stuart England, the reasoning behind the satanic covenant becomes clearer. Whilst the pact had next to no basis in scripture, indirectly the Bible’s influence is