The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, chapter 1: Of the false, irrational, and unchristian Censures, that have been, and yet are (part 2 of 3)

5. Roger Bacon our Country-man, who was a Franciscan Fryar, 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 as Pitts saith, he was twice cited to Rome by Clement the Fourth, to purge himself of that accusation, and was forced to send his Optical and Mathematical Instruments to Rome, 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, and Nandaeus, only I shall add one Sentence forth of that most learned Treatise, De mirabili potestate artis & naturae, & de nullitate magiae. Where he saith thus: Quicquid autem est praeter operationem naturae vel artis, aut non est humanum, aut est fictum & sraudibus 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 to Euclid, 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 now adays) 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 the most Learned in all Europe, could not protect him from this harsh and unjust censure. For Dr. Casaubon near fifty years after Dr. Dees death, hath in the year 1659. published a large Book in Folio of Dees conversing 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. Casaubon being 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 represent Dee as a most infamous and wicked person, as may be plainly seen in the whole drift of his tedious Preface. But his design to make Dee a 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. Trithemius that Honour and Ornament of Germany for all sorts of Literature, wanted not a Bouillus to calumniate and condemn him of unlawful Magick, from which all the Learned in Europe know he is absolved, by the able and elegant Pen of him that styles himself Gustavus Silenus, and others. Cornelius Agrippa run the same Fate, by the scribling of that ignorant and envious Monk Paulus Jovius, from whose malicious slander he is totally acquitted by the irrefragable evidence of Wierus, Melchior Adams, Nandaeus, and others. Who almost have not read or heard of the horrid and abominable false scandals laid upon that totius Germaniae decus, Paracelsus, by the malevolent Pen of Erastus, and after swallowed up with greediness by Libanius, 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, as Dorne, Petrus Severinus, Smetius, Crollius, Bitiscius, and many others. Our Country-man 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 as Marsennus, Lanovius, Foster, and Gassendus, as also our Casaubon (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, Wierus a learned person, a German, and in his time Physician to the Duke of Cleve; the other our Country-man 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 titled Daemonologia, fathered upon King James (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 Author Melchior Adams in 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.

1. Could ever any rational man have thought or believed, that Mr. Glanvil, a person whopretends to such high parts, would have expressed so much weakness and impudence, as to have charged Mr. Scot with 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 words Scot doth 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 no[…] write.

2. Mr. Scot and Wierus do not state the Question, An sint, Whether there be Witches or not, but Quomodo 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, or de existentia, but only de 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 City Peking in China, or about the length, breadth, and height of the great Wall dividing China from Tartary; 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 of Gotham, 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 charged Scot so falsely. And do not the ancient Fathers differ in their opinions circa 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. Glanvil or 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 is fallacia 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.

3. A third scandal Mr. Glanvil throws 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 read Scots Book, 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. Reynolds did 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. Scot hath done little but told odd tales and silly Legends, Mr. Glanvil might 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 that Scot tells be odd and silly, they are the most of them taken from those pitiful lying Witchmongers, such as Delrio, Bodinus, Springerus, R[…]migius, 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. Glanvil to give general accusations without particular proofs, as to say Scots reasonings 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: For dolus 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. Glanvil could not do, and therefore he only gives general calumniations without ground; and if Scot were 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. Casaubon must 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, Scot is 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. Reynolds were 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. Reynolds reputation, an evidence, in Reason and Law, of no weight or validity.

5. For Dr. Casaubon to 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. Casaubon would not have another to judge and condemn him for an illiterate Wretch, and therefore he ought not to have condemned Mr. Scot to 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 soul scandal is manifest in both the particulars therein couched. 1. For Mr. Scot was 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.

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.