CHAP.I.

THEDISPLAYINGOF SUPPOSEDWITCHCRAFT.

THE

DISPLAYING

OF SUPPOSED

WITCHCRAFT.

CHAP.I.

Of the false, irrational, and unchristian Censures, that have been, and yet are, cast upon Learned men, for writing of abstruse Subjects: As also for treating of Apparitions and Witchcraft, especially if they crossed the common stream of vulgar Opinion.

Being about to treat of the mysterious and abstruse Subject of Witches and Witchcraft, I cannot but think it necessary (especially to make the things we handle more plain and evidential) to imitate Architectors, who when they intend to raise some fair Fabrick or Edifice, do not only provide themselves of good and lasting Materials, but above all take care to lay a firm and sure foundation, which they cannot well accomplish, unless the earth and rubbish be removed, that a firm ground for a foundation may be found out. So before I lay the foundation of what I intend in this Discourse, I shall labour to remove some censures and calumnies, that are usually cast upon those learned persons that labour to unmanacle imprisoned truth, and to adventure to cross the stream of vulgar Opinion, backt with seeming Authority, Antiquity, or universality of Votes, especially if they have intermeddled in Subjects occult and mysterious.

And these Censures (how unjust soever) have often deterred themost able and best learned from divulging their opinions, or publish their thoughts upon such difficult and intricate matters, which (I conceive) ought not to be done for these reasons.

Reas. 1.

1. Because the best part of a man, as naturally considered, is his Courage, Resolution, and Magnanimity, which should make him resolute and couragious to declare and maintain, what he upon sound and rational grounds apprehends to be truth, and not at all to fear the censure or judgment of others, who may have had no better means to inform themselves, or perhaps have been less diligent, and however are subject to the same errours and mistakes of Mankind, who must all confess the verity of that unerring Oracle,Humanum est errare. And therefore he must needs be a person of a poor, base, and low spirit, that doth conceal his own sentiments of the truth, for fear of the censure or calumnies of others.

Reas. 2.

August. de Agone Christi.

2. He that is afraid to declare his thoughts, for fear of censure or scandal, must of necessity be very weak in his Morals, as having little affection for verity, which is the chief object of the intellect, and consequently ought above all things to sway and lead the affections. And to be frighted from owning or declaring of the truth, for fear of the vain, aery, groundless, and erroneous censures of others, must needs speak a man weak in the grounds of Morality, and to have small affection for vertue, whole guide is verity. The Learned Father said exceeding well to this purpose:Qui veritatem occultat, & qui prodit mendacium, uterq; reus est. Ille quia prodesse non vult, ipse quia nocere desiderat.

Reas. 3.

Prov. 23. 23.

Gregor. Homil.

Chrysost. sup. Math.

3. He that conceals the truth that he knows, for fear of the censures of others, must needs have little of Christianity in him, for we are commanded to buy the truth, and not to sell it; but for a Christian to conceal the truth, and not to dare to declare and defend it, for fear of the vain and perishing censures of men, is to make absolute sale of the truth, and that for the worst of all prises that can be. For what a weightless and worthless prise are the judgments and opinions of vain man, whose breath is in his nostrils, and whose life is but a vapor, that a Christian should, for fear of such vain censures, be afraid to declare or defend the truth? Therefore let the subtil Politicians andMachiavilliansof this Age, who have in a manner turned the truth of the Christian Religion, and the most certain Rules of Providence into Atheism, and becom’d vain Idolaters, to sacrifice to the falsely adored and deified fancies of their own craft and cunning, think or say what they please, yet the rule of piousGregorywill ever hold true:Ille veritatis defensor esse debet, qui quum rectè sentit, loqui non metuit, nec erubescit. And that ofChrysostomought never to be forgotten by a good Christian, and one that fears God, who saith:Non solùm proditor est veritatis, qui mendacium pro veritate loquitur: sed qui non liberè pronuntiat veritatem, quam pronuntiare oportet, aut non liberè defendit veritatem, quam defendere oportet. But as there have been some that have been affrighted with the feignedBugbears of malevolent mens censures and scandals; so there have been others, to whom Nature hath given greater Magnanimity, who were better principled in their Morals, and better rudimented in the Christian Religion, that have scorned and undervalued those censures as vanities and trifles, and these were those

——Quos Jupiter æquus amavit,Et meliore luto finxit præcordia Titan.

——Quos Jupiter æquus amavit,

Et meliore luto finxit præcordia Titan.

These were those that for the advancement of Truth and Learning, and the benefit of Mankind durst undertake

Ire per excubias, & se committere Parcis.

And feared not the tempestuous storms of venemous tongues, or malicious minds, of which we shall here enumerate a competent Catalogue.

Præf. in Harvæi Exerc. Anat.

Pag. 3.

1. In the first place we need not travel far, either in regard of time or place, to find Precedents of such as have undergone no small censures and subsannations for vindicating Truth, and labouring the advancement of it, though against common and deep-rooted Opinion. So ill entertainment new Inventors and Inventions have always found amongst the present Masters of several Professions, and those that made the World believe, that they alone had gained the Monopoly of all Learning. Our learned Countryman DoctorHackwellin his Preface to his Apology, hath sufficiently proved this particular: whose profound Piece of proving no decay in Nature (a truth now sufficiently known, and assented to) found no small opposition, both from the Learned in Theology, and other persons, and underwent many sharp censures, until men had more considerately weighed the strength and cogency of his Arguments, which carry sufficient evidence to confute rational persons. Our learned and most industrious Anatomist Dr.Harvey, who (notwithstanding the late Cavils of some) first found forth and evidenced to the World that rare and profitable discovery of the Circulation of the Blood, did undergo the like Fate: who for eighteen or twenty years together did groan under the heavy censure of all the Galenists and expert Anatomists almost inEurope, and was railed upon, and bitterly written against, not only by such asAlexander Rosseand Dr.Primrose, but byRiolanusand others, and not forborn by that famous Physician ofRoterodam,Zacharias Sylvius, who ingenuously confesseth thus much:Primum mihi inventum hoc non placuit, quod & voce & scripto publicè testatus sum; sed dum postea ei resultando & explodendo vehementiùs incumbo, refutor & ipse & explodor: adeò sunt rationes ejus non persuadentes, sed cogentes: diligenter omnes examinavi, & in vivis aliquot canibus eum in finem à me dissectis, verissimum comperi. Which was a most candid and free retractation and confession of his own errours, and may be proposed as an example to all rash and unadvised Censurers. Neither could this most clear and evidential Verity (which falls under ocular Demonstration and manifest Experiments) find countenance in the World, until thatWallæus,Plempius,and divers other judicious and accurate Anatomists, had sound the truth ofHarvey’s opinion, by their own tryals and ocular inspection: so difficult it is to overthrow an old radicated opinion. For I have known some years ago, that a person for owning or maintaining the Circulation of the blood, should have been censured and derided, as much by other Physicians, as one should be now for denying the same: so hard it is to root out an opinion (though never so false and groundless) if once setled in the brains of many, and hath had a long current of continued reputation and belief. And it is much more to consider the ignorance, stupidity, and perversness of those, that in this Age of Knowledge dare take upon them to censure (nay to condemn) that Society of persons, and their endeavours, who have a just, pious, merciful, and learned King for their Founder, and the greatest number of Nobility and Gentry, renowned both for divine and humane Knowledge, that can be chosen forth of the three Nations for their Members, and whose undertakings and level are the most high, noble, and excellent that ever yet the World was partaker of. And yet (which may be wondred at) I have not only met with many, that do censure and misjudge their vast and laudable enterprise, but even have been bold to appear in Print to censure and scandalize their proceedings, as is manifest in that Piece styledPlus ultra, written by Mr.StubbsofWarwick, wherein he hath effected as much as Dogs do by barking at the Moon. But it is plain, that highness of place, or greatness of parts exempts no man from evil tongues, or bad censures. And to this purpose I cannot but add Dr.Casaubon, who as he had a long sickness of body, so doubtless he wanted not some distemper of mind, when in his Treatise of Credulity and Incredulity, he uttered this. “If I may speak my mind (he saith) without offence, this prodigious propensity to innovation in all kinds, but in matters of Learning particularly, which so many upon no ground, that I can see, or appearance of reason, are possessed with; I know not what we should more probably ascribe it unto, than to some sad Constellation or influence.” Alas! poor man, he was so blind, that he could see no ground or appearance of reason for the usefulness of Experimental Philosophy, nor for the Institution of the Royal Society, but must ascribe it to the Stars: it is a wonder why he ascribes it not to natural Melancholy, as he doth almost all strange Effects, in his Book of Enthusiasm or why not unto Demons or Witches, as he doth the most things in the Treatise quoted.

2. That learned and painful personRenatus des Cartes, who brought in, revived, and refined the old Doctrine of Atoms, ascribed toDemocritus, and other of the Ancients, found for a long time much opposition; insomuch that when he lived atUtrechtinHolland, the Aristotelian Professors of that University became so inflamed with envy at him, that their Scholars raised the Rabble of the City at the sound of a Bell, to drive him out of Town. Andyet this mans Philosophy hath had the luck to triumph in that University, where so much contempt was poured upon him; forHenricus Regius, the publick Professor of Physick there, hath published a Book of Natural Philosophy, agreeable to the Principles and design ofDes Cartes: and is in a manner generally received and applauded; and by the honourable Mr.Boylemuch made use of, and by him styled the Corpuscularian Philosophy. So was not that most learned and diligent MathematicianGalalæusimprisoned for seeing more than others could by the help of his Optick Glasses, losing (as one saith) his own liberty in Prison, for giving the Earth liberty to fetch a round about the Sun? And yet now to what great height of improvement are Telescopes arrived unto, and what credit is given to the Observations made with them? though in their birth their first Author and User so much opposed and punished; for all Inventions that are new (as well as Opinions) are in their beginnings opposed and censured, not considering, that all acquired Knowledge, and all Arts and Sciences were once new, and had their beginnings.

3. WhenJosephus Quercetanusand SirTheodore Mayerndid labour to introduce the practice of Chymical Physick into the City ofParis, what cruel censures and scandals did they undergo by all the rest of the Physicians of the Colledge, so that they were accounted illiterate and ignorant Fellows and dangerous Empiricks, not fit to practise in the King ofFrancehis Dominions, and so were sentenced by the Colledge, and prohibited to practise? So far did ignorance, self-interest, and blind malice prevail against these two persons, of so much Worth and Learning, insomuch that the former was made Physician to the King ofFrance, and lived to see despised Chymistry to flourish, where it had been most contemned, himself to be honoured, and his Chymical Works to be published, and to be had in great and general esteem with all that were Lovers of Learning. The latter likewise out-lived the malice of all his enemies, and saw himself advanced to be Physician to two potent and renowned Kings ofEngland, and to have the general practice of the most of the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom, and to live to a fair old age, and to dye vastly rich. So that even the bravest men, for their noble endeavors for the good of Mankind, have always found harsh usage.

Mund. subter.lib.11.sect.2.pag.277.

Prov. 26. 12.

Hist. Magic.c.14.p.177.

De Arte Lullian. Præf.

Vide Relat. Paris. impres. Gallicè, 1631.

4. It hath fared no better with divers persons that have written of abstruse and mysterious Subjects, such as wereArnoldus de Villa NovaandRaimundus Lullius, who, because they handled that secret and sublime Art of the Transmutation of Metals, were by the ignorance and malice ofFrancis Pegnaand theJohn TredeschenofRome,Athanasius Kircherus, with some others, branded with the name of Magicians, taken in the worst sense.Facile est reprehendere & maledicere, so apt are men through over-weening pride and self-conceitedness, as though they were ignorant of nothing, to take upon them to censure all things, when Artists only are fit tojudge of those proper Arts, in which they are verst and bred in, and not others: For it is not sufficient for a man to be verst in many parts of Learning, but also in that very Science or Art, in which the Question is propounded: as for Example; Suppose a man to be well read in School Theology, Metaphysicks, Logick, Grammar, Rhetorick, Ethicks, and Physicks, yet for all this how unable were he to resolve one of the difficultest Propositions inEuclid? no more can any person, though never so generally learned, if he perfectly do not understand the method, terms, ground, matter, and end of the Writers in mystical Chymistry, be any competent Judge of their Art, nor of the nature of Transmutation. And this might justly have bridledKircher, and many other rash and vain Censurers to hold back their judgment, until they perfectly understand the matter, about which they are to give judgment, and to have considered that Maxime of the wisest of men:Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.But notwithstanding these groundless slanders againstArnoldus, that he was guilty of Diabolical Magick, from which the Pen of learnedNandæushath totally discharged him, though he otherwise (according to his petulant humor and prejudiced opinion against the Art of Transmutation, of which he was no competent Judge, for the reason foregoing) cast some unworthy reflections both upon him, andLully, yet he confesseth (which is but the bare truth, as every learned Physician doth sufficiently know, that have heedfully read his Writings of the Art of Medicine) in these words, “That it is certain, he was the learnedest Physician of his time, equally acquainted with the Latine, Greek, and Arabian Tongues, and one whose Writings sufficiently witness his abilities in the Mathematicks, Medicine, and Philosophy, the practice whereof gained him favour and imployment about PopeClement, andFrederickKing ofSicily, who certainly would never have made use of him, if he had thought him a Conjurer or Magician, such as many judged he was.” As forLully(notwithstanding the malevolent froth of some rash, malicious, and ignorant Writers) he was guilty of no other Magick but what was natural, lawful, and laudable, as his profound and learned Works (if his blind Adversaries had ever taken pains to have perused them, who frequently censure and condemn those things they never saw, read, or understood) do witness beyond all exception, and is all justified by the testimonies of so many learned and judicious persons, that more cannot be said to his praise and vindication. The most of his learned Works being kept in the Library atOxford, written in an ancient hand: which would never have been done, if they had not been highly esteemed and prised. For asZetznerusthe great Stationer ofStasburghsaith: “Tantæ suo fuisse ævo authoritatis atq; æstimationis legitur, ut justissimi Arragonum Reges eum in privilegiis eidem concessis, magnum in Philosophia magistrum, & mirandarum artium & scientiarum authorem nominârint.” Lastly, one FatherPacificusin his JourneyfromPersia1628. came into the Isle ofMajorca, whereLullywas born, and to his great admiration found the Statue ofLullythere in Wood curiously coloured, and he honoured as a Saint (whom he had before judged an Heretick) as also a Society of Professors following the Doctrine ofLully, and calledRaymundinesorLullists, and that they affirmed, that by Divine illumination he had the perfect knowledge of Nature, by which he found out the universal Medicine, by a certainAurum potabile, by which he prolonged his life to the 145. year of his age, in which year he suffered Martyrdom. This I have produced to shew how inconsiderately and ignorantly the best learned of an Age may be, and often are wrongfully and falsely traduced and slandered, which may be a warning to all persons to take heed how they pass their censures, until they understand perfectly all that is necessary to be known about the Subject they are to give judgment of, before they utter or declare their sentence.

Lib.1.de Script. Anglic.

Cap.1.

5.Roger Baconour Countryman, who was aFranciscanFryar, and Doctor of Divinity, the greatest Chymist, Astrologer, and Mathematician of his time, yet could not escape the injurious and unchristian censure of being a Conjurer, and so hard put to it, that asPittssaith, he was twice cited toRomebyClementthe Fourth, to purge himself of that accusation, and was forced to send his Optical and Mathematical Instruments toRome, to satisfie the Pope and the Conclave, which he amply performed, and came off with honor and applause. To vindicate whom I need say little, because it is already performed by the Pens of those learned persons,Pitts,Leland,Selden, andNandæus, only I shall add one Sentence forth of that most learned Treatise,De mirabili potestate artis & naturæ, & de nullitate magiæ. Where he saith thus:Quicquid autem est præter operationem naturæ vel artis, aut non est humanum, aut est fictum & fraudibus occupatum. Another of our Country-men Dr.John Dee, the greatest and ablest Philosopher, Mathematician, and Chymist that his Age (or it may be ever since) produced, could not evade the censure of the Monster-headed multitude, but even in his life time was accounted a Conjurer, of which he most sadly (and not without cause) complaineth in his most learned Preface toEuclid, Englished by Mr.Billingsley, and there strongly apologizeth for himself, with that zeal and fervency, that may satisfie any rational Christian, that he was no such wicked person, as to have visible and familiar converse (if any such thing can be nowadays) with the Devil, the known Enemy of Mankind, of which take this short passage, where he saith: “O my unkind Country-men, O unnatural Country-men, O unthankful Country-men, O brain-sick, rash, spiteful, and disdainful Country-men, why oppress you me thus violently with your slandering of me contrary to verity, and contrary to your own consciences?” Yet notwithstanding this, and his known abilities in the most parts of abstruse Learning, the great respect that he had from divers Princes, Nobles, and themost Learned in allEurope, could not protect him from this harsh and unjust censure. For Dr.Casaubonnear fifty years after Dr.Deesdeath, hath in the year 1659. published a large Book in Folio ofDeesconversing for many years with Spirits (wicked ones he meaneth.) But how Christian-like this was done, to wound the mans reputation so many years after his death, and with that horrid and wicked slander of having familiarity with Devils for many years in his life time, which tends to the loss both of body and soul, and to register him amongst the damned, how Christian-like this is, I leave all Christians to judge? Besides, let all the World judge in this case, that Dr.Casaubonbeing a sworn Witchmonger, even to the credulity of the filthiest and most impossible of their actions, cannot but allow of the Law that doth punish them for digging up the bones of the dead, to use them to Superstition or Sorcery; what may he then think the World may judge him guilty of, for uncovering the Dormitories of the deceased, not to abuse their bones, but to throw their Souls into the deepest pit of Hell? A wickedness certainly beyond the greatest wickedness, that he can believe is committed by Witches. It is manifest, that he hath not published this meerly as a true relation of the matter of fact, and so to leave it to others to judge of; but that designedly he hath laboured to representDeeas a most infamous and wicked person, as may be plainly seen in the whole drift of his tedious Preface. But his design to makeDeea Converser with evil Spirits was not all, he had another that concerned himself more nearly. He had before run in a manner (by labouring to make all that which he called Enthusiasm, to be nothing else but imposture or melancholy and depraved phantasie, arising from natural causes) into the censure of being a Sadducee or Atheist. To wash off which he thought nothing was so prevalent, as to leap into the other end of the balance (the mean is hard to be kept) to weigh the other down, by publishing some notorious Piece that might (as he thought) in an high degree manifest the existence of Spirits good and bad, and this he thought would effect it sufficiently, or at least wipe off the former imputation that he had contracted.

But that I may not be too tedious, I shall sum up briefly some others, by which it may be made clear, that those dauntless Spirits that have adventured to cross the current of common opinion, and those that have handled abstruse Subjects, have never wanted opposition and scandal, how true or profitable soever the things were that they treated or writ of.Trithemiusthat Honour and Ornament ofGermanyfor all sorts of Literature, wanted not aBouillusto calumniate and condemn him of unlawful Magick, from which all the Learned inEuropeknow he is absolved, by the able and elegant Pen of him that styles himselfGustavus Silenus, and others.Cornelius Agripparun the same Fate, by the scribling of that ignorant and envious MonkPaulus Jovius, from whose malicious slander he is totally acquitted by the irrefragable evidence ofWierus,Melchior Adams,Nandæus, and others. Who almost have not read or heard of the horrid and abominable false scandals laid upon thattotius Germaniæ decus,Paracelsus, by the malevolent Pen ofErastus, and after swallowed up with greediness byLibanius,Conringius,Sennertus, and many others? for not only labouring to bring in a new Theory and Practice into the Art of Medicine, but also for striving to purge and purifie the ancient, natural, laudable, and lawful Magick from the filth and dregs of Imposture, Deceit, Ceremonies, and Superstitions: yet hath not wanted most strong and invincible Champions to defend him, asDorne,Petrus Severinus,Smetius,Crollius,Bitiscius, and many others. Our Countryman Dr.Fudd, a man acquainted with all kinds of Learning, and one of the most Christian Philosophers that ever writ, yet wanted not those snarling Animals, such asMarsennus,Lanovius,Foster, andGassendus, as also ourCasaubon(as mad as any) to accuse him vainly and falsely of Diabolical Magick, from which the strength of his own Pen and Arguments did discharge him without possibility of replies. We shall now come to those that have treated of Witchcraft, and strongly opposed and confuted the many wonderful and incredible actions and power ascribed unto Witches: and these crossing the vogue of the common opinion, have not wanted their loads of unworthy and unchristian scandals cast upon them, of which we shall only name these two,Wierusa learned person, a German, and in his time Physician to the Duke ofCleve; the other our Countryman Mr.Reginald Scot, a person of competent Learning, pious, and of a good Family: what is said against them in particular, I shall recite, and give a brief responsion unto it.

1. There is a little Treatise in Latine titledDæmonologia, fathered upon KingJames(how truly we shall not dispute, for some ascribe it to others) where in the Preface these two persons are intimated to be Witches, and that they writ against the common opinion, concerning the Power of Witches, the better to shelter and conceal their Diabolical skill. But indeed this groundless accusation needs no confutation, but rather scorn and derision, as having no rational ground of probability at all, that they should be such cursed Hypocrites, or dissembling Politicians, the one being a very learned and able Physician, as both his Writings do witness, and that upright and unpartial AuthorMelchior Adamsin his life hath most amply declared: the other known (as not living so very many years ago) to be a godly, learned, and an upright man, as his Book which he calleth,The Discovery of Witchcraft, doth most largely make it appear, if his Adversaries had ever taken the pains to peruse it. So that all rational persons may plainly see, that it is but a lying invention, a malicious device, and a meer forged accusation.

2. These persons are accused to have absolutely denied the existence of Witches, which we shall demonstrate to be notoriously false, by these following reasons.

Considerat. about Witchcraft, p. 76.

1. Could ever any rational man have thought or believed, that Mr.Glanvil, a person who pretends to such high parts, would have expressed so much weakness and impudence, as to have charged Mr.Scotwith the flat denial of the existence of Witches; as he doth in these words speaking of him? and pretends this to be a Confutation of the being of Witches and Apparitions; and this he intimates in divers other places, but without any quotation, to shew where or in what wordsScotdoth simply deny the Being of Witches, which he doth no where maintain: so confident are many to charge others with that which they neither hold nor write.

2. Mr.ScotandWierusdo not state the Question,An sint, Whether there be Witches or not, butQuomodo sint, in what manner they act. So that their Question is only, What kind of power supposed Witches have, or do act by, and what the things are that they do or can perform: so that the state of the question is not simply of the Being of Witches, orde existentia, but onlyde modo existendi: wherein it is plain, that every Dispute de modo existendi, doth necessarily grant and suppose the certainty of the Existence, otherwise the Dispute of the manner of their Being, Properties, Power, or Acts would have no ground or foundation at all. As if I and another should dispute about the extent, buildings, and situation of the great CityPekinginChina, or about the length, breadth, and height of the great Wall dividingChinafromTartary; we both do take for granted, that there is such a City, and such a Wall, otherwise our Dispute would be wild, vain, and groundless: like the two Wise-men ofGotham, who strove and argued about the driving of sheep over a bridge; the one affirming he would drive his sheep over the bridge, and the other protesting against it, and so begun, one as it were to drive, and the other to stay and stop them, when there were no sheep betwixt them. And this might be a sufficient document to Mr.Glanvil, to have been more sober, than to have chargedScotso falsely. And do not the ancient Fathers differ in their opinionscirca Angelorum modum existendi, some of them holding them to be corporeal, and some incorporeal? yet both these parties did firmly hold their existence: so that this is a false and improper charge, and hath no basis to stand upon at all.

3. What man of reason and judgment could have believed, that Mr.Glanvilor Dr.Casaubon, being persons that pretend to a great share of Learning, and to be exact in their ways of arguing, would have committed so pitiful and gross a fault, as isfallacia consequentis? For if I deny that a Witch cannot flye in the air, nor be transformed or transsubstantiated into a Cat, a Dog, or an Hare, or that the Witch maketh any visible Covenant with the Devil, or that he sucketh on their bodies, or that the Devil hath carnal Copulation with them; I do not thereby deny either the Being of Witches, nor other properties that they may have, for which they may be so called: no more than if I deny that a Dog hath rugibility(which is only proper to a Lion) doth it follow that I deny the being of a Dog, or that he hath latrability? this is meer inconsequential, and hath no connexion. So if I deny that a man cannot flye by his natural abilities in the air like a Bird, nor live continually in the Sea as a fish, nor in the earth as a Worm or Mole, this doth not at all infer that I deny the existence of man, nor his other properties of risibility, rationality, or the like. But this is the learned Logick, and the clear ways of arguing that these men use.

Pag. 76.

Of Credul. and Incredul. p. 40.

3. A third scandal Mr.Glanvilthrows upon him is this, where he saith thus: “For the Author doth little but tell odd tales and silly Legends, which he confutes and laughs at, and pretends this to be a confutation of the Being of Witches and Apparitions. In all which, his reasonings are trifling and childish; and when he ventures at Philosophy, he is little better than absurd. Dr.Casaubon, though he confesseth he had never readScotsBook, but as he had found it by chance in friends houses, or Book-sellers Shops, yet doth rank him amongst the number of his illiterate Wretches, and tells us how Dr.Reynoldsdid censure him and some others.” To these, though they be not much material, we shall give positive and convincing answers.

1. There is no greater sign of the weakness of a mans cause, nor his inability to defend it, than when he slips over the substance of the question in hand, and begins to fall foul upon the adverse party, to throw dirt and filth upon him, and to abuse and slander him: this is a thing very usual, but exceeding base, and plainly demonstrates the badness of their cause.

2. If Mr.Scothath done little but told odd tales and silly Legends, Mr.Glanvilmight very well have born with him; for I am sure his story of the Drummer, and his other of Witchcraft are as odd and silly, as any can be told or read, and are as futilous, incredible, ludicrous, and ridiculous as any can be. And if the tales thatScottells be odd and silly, they are the most of them taken from those pitiful lying Witchmongers, such asDelrio,Bodinus,Springerus,Remigius, and the like, the Authors that are most esteemed with Dr.Casaubon, and other Witchmongers, of whom we shall say more hereafter.

3. For Mr.Glanvilto give general accusations without particular proofs, as to sayScotsreasonings are trifling and childish, and when he ventures at Philosophy, he is little better than absurd, do plainly manifest the mans malice, and discover his weakness: Fordolus versatur in universalibus, and no man ought to be condemned without particular and punctual proof, as to the time, place, and all other circumstances, which Mr.Glanvilcould not do, and therefore he only gives general calumniations without ground; and ifScotwere little better than absurd, then he the better agrees with Mr.Glanvil, whose Platonical Whimseys are as absurd as any, as we shall sufficiently prove hereafter.

4. Dr.Casaubonmust needs have been highly elevated with the desire of censuring, when he would condemn a man without reading his Book, or serious weighing the force of his arguments, this concludes him of vast weakness, and of great perversness of mind, as all rational men may judge; for in effect it is this,Scotis an illiterate Wretch, and his Book full of errors, but I never read it, but as I have looked upon it at a friends house, or a Book-sellers Shop: is not this a wretched ground whereupon to build so wretched a foundation, as thereby to judge him an illiterate Wretch? And to censure him by the report of others, is as unjust, weak, and childish as the former; and though Dr.Reynoldswere a learned man, it doth not appear for what particular point or errour he censured Scot, and therefore is but a general and groundless charge, sheltred under the colour of Dr.Reynoldsreputation, an evidence, in Reason and Law, of no weight or validity.

5. For Dr.Casaubonto rank him amongst illiterate Wretches, is against the very Rule of the Law of Nature, that teaches all men, that they should not do that to another, which they would not have another to do unto them. And sure Dr.Casaubonwould not have another to judge and condemn him for an illiterate Wretch, and therefore, he ought not to have condemned Mr.Scotto be so. And as it is against the Law of Nature, so it is contrary to the rules of modesty and morality to give a man such stigmatizing titles: nay it is even against the rules of good manners and civil education, but that some men think that it is lawful for them to say any thing, and that nothing what they say doth misbeseem them. And lastly, how far it is against the Rules of Christianity and Piety, let all good Christians judge.

6. The falsity of this foul scandal is manifest in both the particulars therein couched. 1. For Mr.Scotwas a learned and diligent person, as the whole Treatise will bear witness; he understood the Latine Tongue, and something of the Greek, and for the Hebrew, if he knew nothing of it, yet he had procured very good helps, as appeareth in his expounding the several words that are used in the Scriptures for supposed Witches and Witchcraft; as also his quoting of divers of the Fathers, the reformed Ministers, and many other Authors besides, which sufficiently prove that he was not illiterate. 2. And that he was no wretched person, is apparent, being a man of a good Family, a considerable Estate, a man of a very commendable government, and a very godly and zealous Protestant, as I have been informed by persons of worth and credit, and is sufficiently proved by his Writing.

I have not been thus tedious to accumulate these instances of men that have been censured, for opposing vulgar opinions, or writing of abstruse Subjects, as circumstantial only, or for a flourish, but meerly as they are introductive, necessary, and pertinent to the purpose I intend in this Treatise, as I shall make manifest in these Rules or Observations following, and shall add sufficient reasons to confirm the same.

Rule 1.

1. That the generality of an opinion, or the numerousness of the persons that hold and maintain it, are not a safe and warrantable ground to receive it, or to adhere unto it: nor that it is safe or rational to reject an opinion, because they are but few that do hold it, or the number but small that maintain it. And this I shall labour to make good by these sure and firm arguments following.

Exod. 13. 2.

Mat. 24. 5.

Luke 6. 26.

Lib. de vit. beat. Lactant. Duimar. Instit. l. 2. c. 3.

1. Because the Scriptures tell us thus much:Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil.And that there are many deceivers:For many shall come in my Name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. And woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you: for so did their fathers to the false Prophets.From whence it is plain, that first we are to consider and be assured, that the matter be not evil; for if it be, we are not at all to be swayed with the multitudes that follow it, or that uphold it: so if the opinion be evil, erroneous, or false, we ought not to receive it, or adhere unto it, though never so many do hold or maintain it. So that in truth and substance, we are not at all to consider, whether there be few or many that hold it, but simply, whether it be true or not. For asPlatotells us:Neq; id considerandum quid dixerit, sed utrum verè dicatur nec ne. For the multitude have been by all good Authors and Learned men always esteemed the most erroneous, asSenecasaith:Quærendum non quod vulgo placet, pessimo veritatis interpreti. AndLactantiusteaches us this:Vulgus indoctum pompis inanibus gaudet, animisq; puerilibus spectat omnia, oblectatur frivolis, nec ponderare secum unamquamq; rem potest. And our Saviour gives us a proof and instance of the errour of the multitude, and that in matter of fact. Did not almost all the Jews under divers Kings Raigns applaud and approve of the doctrine and opinions of the false Prophets, though utterly erroneous? insomuch thatElijahsaid, that he only was left of the true Prophets, though the false ones were many and numerous. So that the Rule is proved to be true, both by the precept and example of the Scriptures.

2. If we consider the generality of Mankind, either in respect of their inclinations and dispositions, or their breeding and education, we shall not find one of an hundred, either by nature inclined, or by education fitted and qualified to search forth and understand the truth. And then if there be an hundred to one drowned in ignorance and errors, and so few fitted to understand the truth of things either divine or natural, then it must needs follow, that it is not safe to embrace or adhere to an opinion, because of the great number of those that hold or maintain it, but rather to stick to the smaller number; though neither simply ought to be regarded, but truth it self.

3. Again, if we consider those numbers, that either by nature are inclined, or by education trained up in Learning, to enable them to judge rightly betwixt truth and truth-likeliness, how few of these that prove any thing excellent in those parts of Learningwherein they are bred, we may easily see the verity of this Rule sufficiently proved, that it is not safe to embrace or adhere to an opinion, because the numbers are great that hold or maintain it.

4. If the multitude that hold the opinions, whether of spiritual or natural things were to be followed, meerly because of the great numbers that hold them: then if we look and consider the Writings of the best Geographers, Travellers, and Navigators, we should either be of the opinions of the Pagans, who are the most numerous part of Mankind, or the Mahumetans, which are many in respect of the paucity of Christians. And then what horrid, blasphemous, idolatrous, impious, and diabolical opinions must we receive and hold, both concerning God, Angels, the Creation, and the most of the operations that are produced by Nature? So that the arguments of Dr.Casaubonand Mr.Glanvil, drawn from the universality of the opinion, and the great multitudes of those that hold it, are vain and groundless.

5. If the comparison I use be thought too large, and the rule be put only as to the greater part of the Learned that are inEurope, yet it will hold good, that the greatest part of the Learned are not to be adhered to, because of their numerousness; nor that the rest are to be rejected, because of their paucity. For it is known sufficiently, that a Bishop ofMentzwas censured and excommunicated for holding that there wereAntipodes, by some hundreds of those that were accounted learned and wise: so that it is plain, that the greater number may be in the errour, and those that are few be in the right. And did not the greatest number of the Physicians inEuropealtogether adhere to the Doctrine ofGalen, though now inGermany,France,England, and many other Nations the most have exploded it? And was not theAristotelianPhilosophy embraced by the greatest part of all the Learned inEurope? And have not theCartesiansand others sufficiently now manifested the errours and imperfections of it, and especially the endeavors of the honourable and learned Members of the Royal Society here inEngland, and the like Societies beyond Seas by their continual labour and vigilancy about Experiments, made the errours and defects of it obvious to all inquisitive persons? So that multitude, as multitude, ought not to lead or sway us, but truth it self.

6. If to all this we add, that truth in it self is but one; forunumand verum are convertibles, and that errour or falsity is various and manifold, and that there may be a thousand errours about one particular thing, and yet but one truth; it will necessarily follow, the greatest number holding an opinion, cannot be safe to be followed because of their multitude, and the reason is errour, is manifold, truth but one.

Rule 2.

2. It is not safe nor rational to receive or adhere to an opinion because of its Antiquity; nor to reject one because of its Novelty. And this we shall make good from and by these following reasons.

1. Because there is no opinion (especially about createdthings) but it hath once been new; and if an opinion should be rejected meerly because of novelty, then it will follow, that either all opinions might have been rejected for that very reason, or that novelty is no safe ground only, why an opinion should be opposed or rejected.

2. Antiquity and Novelty are but relationsquoad nostrum intellectum, non quoad naturam; for the truth, as it is fundamentally in thingsextra intellectum, cannot be accounted either old or new. And an opinion, when first found out and divulged, is as much a truth then, as when the current of hundreds or thousands of years have passed since its discovery. For it was no less a truth, when in the infancy of Philosophy it was holden, that there was generation and corruption in Nature, in respect of Individuals, than it is now: so little doth Time, Antiquity, or Novelty alter, change, confirm, or overthrow truth; forveritas est temporis filia, in regard of its discovery to us or by us, who must draw it forthè puteo Democriti. And the existence of theWest-Indieswas as well before the discovery made byColumbusas since, and our ignorance of it did not impeach the truth of its being, neither did the novelty of its discovery make it less verity, nor the years since make it more: so that we ought simply to examine, whether an opinion be possible or impossible, probable or improbable, true or false; and if it be false, we ought to reject it, though it seem never so venerable by the white hairs of Antiquity; nor ought we to refuse it, though it seem never so young, or near its birth. For as St.Cypriansaid:Error vetustatis est vetustas erroris.

Back to Index Next