_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 the most 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.
[Sidenote: _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.
[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]
[Sidenote: _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._
[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]
[Sidenote: Prov. 23. 23.]
[Sidenote: _Gregor. Homil._]
[Sidenote: _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 and
_Machiavillians_ of 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 pious _Gregory_ will ever hold true: _Ille
veritatis defensor esse debet, qui quum rectè sentit, loqui non metuit,
nec erubescit_. And that of _Chrysostom_ ought 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 feigned Bugbears 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._
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.
[Sidenote: _Præf. in Harvæi Exerc. Anat._]
[Sidenote: 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 Doctor _Hackwell_ in 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 in
_Europe_, and was railed upon, and bitterly written against, not only by
such as _Alexander Rosse_ and Dr. _Primrose_, but by _Riolanus_ and
others, and not forborn by that famous Physician of _Roterodam_,
_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 that
_Wallæus_, _Plempius_, and divers other judicious and accurate
Anatomists, had sound the truth of _Harvey_’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 styled _Plus ultra_, written by Mr. _Stubbs_ of _Warwick_,
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 person _Renatus des Cartes_, who brought in,
revived, and refined the old Doctrine of Atoms, ascribed to
_Democritus_, and other of the Ancients, found for a long time much
opposition; insomuch that when he lived at _Utrecht_ in _Holland_, 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. And yet this mans Philosophy hath
had the luck to triumph in that University, where so much contempt was
poured upon him; for _Henricus Regius_, the publick Professor of Physick
there, hath published a Book of Natural Philosophy, agreeable to the
Principles and design of _Des Cartes_: and is in a manner generally
received and applauded; and by the honourable Mr. _Boyle_ much made use
of, and by him styled the Corpuscularian Philosophy. So was not that
most learned and diligent Mathematician _Galalæus_ imprisoned 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. When _Josephus Quercetanus_ and Sir _Theodore Mayern_ did labour to
introduce the practice of Chymical Physick into the City of _Paris_,
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 of _France_ his 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 of
_France_, 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 of _England_, 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.
[Sidenote: _Mund. subter._ _lib._ 11. _sect._ 2. _pag._ 277.]
[Sidenote: Prov. 26. 12.]
[Sidenote: _Hist. Magic._ _c._ 14. _p._ 177.]
[Sidenote: _De Arte Lullian. Præf._]
[Sidenote: _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 were _Arnoldus de Villa Nova_
and _Raimundus Lullius_, who, because they handled that secret and
sublime Art of the Transmutation of Metals, were by the ignorance and
malice of _Francis Pegna_ and the _John Tredeschen_ of _Rome_,
_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 to judge 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 in _Euclid_? 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 bridled _Kircher_, 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 against _Arnoldus_, that
he was guilty of Diabolical Magick, from which the Pen of learned
_Nandæus_ hath 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, and _Lully_,
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 Pope _Clement_,
and _Frederick_ King of _Sicily_, 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 for _Lully_ (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 at _Oxford_, written in an
ancient hand: which would never have been done, if they had not been
highly esteemed and prised. For as _Zetznerus_ the great Stationer of
_Stasburgh_ saith: “_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 Father _Pacificus_ in his
Journey from _Persia_ 1628. came into the Isle of _Majorca_, where
_Lully_ was born, and to his great admiration found the Statue of
_Lully_ there 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 of _Lully_, and called _Raymundines_ or
_Lullists_, 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 certain _Aurum 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.
[Sidenote: _Lib._ 1. _de Script. Anglic._]
[Sidenote: _Cap._ 1.]
5. _Roger Bacon_ our Countryman, 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 _Nandæus_, 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 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 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 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_, _Nandæus_, and others. Who
almost have not read or heard of the horrid and abominable false
scandals laid upon that _totius Germaniæ 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
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 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 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 titled _Dæmonologia_, 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.
[Sidenote: 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. _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
nor 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.
[Sidenote: _Pag. 76._]
[Sidenote: Of Credul. and Incredul. p. 40.]
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_, _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. _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 foul 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.
[Sidenote: _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.
[Sidenote: Exod. 13. 2.]
[Sidenote: Mat. 24. 5.]
[Sidenote: Luke 6. 26.]
[Sidenote: _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 as _Plato_ tells 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, as
_Seneca_ saith: _Quærendum non quod vulgo placet, pessimo veritatis
interpreti_. And _Lactantius_ teaches 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 that _Elijah_ said, 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 Learning wherein 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. _Casaubon_ and 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 in _Europe_, 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 of _Mentz_ was censured and excommunicated for holding that there
were _Antipodes_, 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 in _Europe_ altogether adhere to the Doctrine
of _Galen_, though now in _Germany_, _France_, _England_, and many other
Nations the most have exploded it? And was not the _Aristotelian_
Philosophy embraced by the greatest part of all the Learned in _Europe_?
And have not the _Cartesians_ and 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 in _England_,
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; for _unum_
and 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.
[Sidenote: _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 created things) 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 relations _quoad nostrum intellectum,
non quoad naturam_; for the truth, as it is fundamentally in things
_extra 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; for _veritas est
temporis filia_, in regard of its discovery to us or by us, who must
draw it forth _è puteo Democriti_. And the existence of the
_West-Indies_ was as well before the discovery made by _Columbus_ as
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. _Cyprian_
said: _Error vetustatis est vetustas erroris_.
[Sidenote: Advanc. of Learn. l. 1. c. 5.]
3. In regard of Natural Philosophy, and the knowledge of the properties
of created things, and the knowledge of them, we preposterously reckon
former Ages, and the men that lived in them, the Ancients; which in
regard of production and generation of the Individuals of their own
Species are so; but in respect of knowledge and experience, this Age is
to be accounted the most ancient. For as the learned Lord _Bacon_ saith:
“Indeed to speak truly, _Antiquitas seculi, juventus mundi_,” Antiquity
of time is the youth of the World. Certainly our times are the ancient
times, when the World is now ancient, and not those which we count
ancient, _ordine retrogrado_, by a computation backward from our own
times; and yet so much credit hath been given to old Authors, as to
invest them with the power of Dictators, that their words should stand,
rather than admit them as Consuls to give advice.
[Sidenote: _Rule 3._]
3. It is not safe nor rational to resolve to stick to our old imbibed
opinions, nor wilfully to reject those that seem new, except we be fully
satisfied, from indubitable grounds, that what we account old is
certainly true, and what we reckon to be new is undoubtedly false. And
this will appear to be a truth, partly from the weakness of their
arguments, that seem utterly to condemn all recession from ancient
opinions, as vain, foolish, and unnecessary; as also from other positive
reasons.
1. Some give the reason why they will not recede from an opinion that
their Predecessors held; for that their Forefathers were as wise, if not
wiser than they. But this, if strictly considered, is very lame and
defective; for their Predecessors were but men, and so were liable both
to active and passive deception, and were not exempted from the common
frailty of Mankind, who are all subject to errours. And therefore,
unless they were assured that their Ancestors in former Ages, held the
certain and undoubted grounds of truth, it is nothing of reason in them,
but meer perversness of will, rather obstinately _errare cum patribus_,
than to learn to follow the truth with those that are coetaneous with
them, which is foolish and irrational. Further, there are more helps
now, and means to attain the knowledge of Verity, than were in the days
when their Ancestors lived, and it must be a kind of the greatest
madness to shut their eyes, that the light of truth may not appear unto
them.
2. This kind of reasoning hath no more of reason in it, than if one
should say, that because his Grandfather and great Grandfather were
blind or lame, therefore they will be so too: or that their Ancestors
never learned the Greek or Latine Tongues, nor to write or read, neither
will they learn any more than they did: or that their Predecessors were
ill husbands and unthrifts, and that therefore they will continue the
same courses: or that because their Forefathers followed drunkenness and
luxury, therefore they will continue the same cariere of vices, as many
of our debauched persons do now adays, having no better reasons to
alledge for their exorbitant and vicious courses, but what the Prophet
condemned, _The fathers have eaten sowr grapes, and the childrens teeth
are set on edge_.
3. How far would they run back to state the beginning of their
Ancestors? If as far as their first Originals, then they must all be
Savages, Barbarians, and Heathens. And if they state it distant from
their first Originals, then their Predecessors had the same reason to
have continued, as those did that preceded them. But if their Ancestors
varied from, and left the steps and opinions of those that went before
them, then if they will do as their Ancestors did, they must leave their
courses and opinions, as they had done of those that preceded them.
[Sidenote: _August. lib. de Liber. Arbitrio._]
4. Some say they cannot recede from the opinions of their Predecessors,
because it would be a shame and disgrace unto them. But that which we
call shame and disgrace consists in the opinion of others, and we ought
not to receive errour, or reject truth, by reason of the censures or
opinions of others: _Si de veritate scandalum sumitur, utilius
permittitur nasci scandalum, quàm veritas relinquatur_. And to leave an
errour to entertain truth, is so far from being a shame and a disgrace,
that there cannot be a greater honour or glory: for _errare humanum est,
sed in errore perseverare belluinum ac diabolicum est_.
[Sidenote: _Rule 4._]
4. Those effects that seem strange and wonderful, either in respect of
Art or Nature, require much diligence truly to discover and find out
their causes; and we ought not rashly to attribute those effects to the
Devil, whose causes are latent or unknown unto us: and that for these
grounds.
[Sidenote: _De Inject. mater. pag. 597._]
[Sidenote: _Ibid. pag. 598._]
1. It hath been common almost in all Ages, not only for the vulgar, but
also for the whole rabble of Demonographers and Witchmongers to ascribe
those strange and wonderful effects, whether arising from Art or Nature,
unto the worst of Gods Creatures, if they did not themselves understand
their causes, and to censure the Authors that writ of them, as Conjurers
and Magicians, as I have made manifest in my former Instances, and might
be further made good and illustrated by the effects of healing by the
Weapon-salve, the Sympathetick Powder, the Curing of divers Diseases by
Appensions, Amulets, or by Transplantation, and many other most
admirable effects both of Art and Nature, which by these self-conceited
Ignorants are all thrown upon the Devils back, and he made the Author
and effector of them, as though he had a kind of omnipotent power: of
which the learned Philosopher and Physician _Van Helmont_ gives us this
account: “_Credo equidem cum pietate pugnare, si Diabolo tribuatur
potestas naturam superans. Verum naturæ ignari præsumunt se naturæ
secretarios per librorum lectionem: quicquid autem ipsos latet, vel
adynaton, vel falsum, vel præstigiosum, atq; diabolicum esto._” And a
little after he adds this: “_Pigritiæ saltem enim immensæ inventum fuit,
omnia in Diabolum retulisse quæ non capimus, nec velim Diabolum
invocatum, ut nostris satisfaciat quæstionibus per temerariam potestatum
attributionem._”
2. Whosoever shall read _Pancirollus de rebus memoralibus noviter
repertis_, may easily be satisfied, what strange and stupendious things
Art and the Inventions of men have produced in these latter Ages. And no
man can rationally doubt, but that many more as strange or far more
wonderful, may in Ages to come be found out and discovered; for there is
a kind of bottomless depth in Arts, whether Liberal or Mechanical, that
yet hath not been founded, but lye hid and unknown unto men. And if
these for their wonderfulness should (as former Ages have ignorantly
done) be ascribed unto the power of Satan, and their Authors accused of
Conjuring and Diabolical Magick, no greater wrong could be done unto Art
and Artists, and it would be a kind of blasphemy to attribute these
stupendious effects (as the Vulgar and Witchmongers use to do) unto the
Devil, the worst of Gods Creatures, and the Enemy of Mankind.
[Sidenote: _Pag. 103._]
[Sidenote: Rom. 1. 20.]
[Sidenote: _De Civit. Dei lib. 10._]
3. The third argument I shall take from Mr. _Glanvil_ (which is the
greatest piece of truth in all his Treatise) and convert and retort it
against him: and is this (he saith) _We are ignorant of the extent and
bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities._ Now if we be ignorant of
the extent and bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities, then it must
needs be folly, madness, and derogative against Gods power in Nature, to
attribute those effects to wicked, fallen, and degenerated Demons, that
we do not know but are produced by the course of Nature. And to ascribe
the products of Nature to such wicked Instruments is blasphemous, in
depriving Nature of the honour due unto her, and robbing God of the
honour and glory belonging unto him, for the wonderful power wherewith
he hath endowed his Creatures, who were all made to shew forth his power
and Godhead, _and the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the
Firmament sheweth his handy-work_: and as one said very well, _Natura
creatrix est quædam vis & potentia divinitùs insita, alia ex aliis in
suo genere producens_. So that the honour that is due unto the Creator,
Conserver, and Orderer of Nature ought not to be ascribed unto the
Devils; for in doing this, the Witchmongers become guilty of Idolatry,
and are themselves such Witches as are mentioned in the Old Testament,
who by their lying Divinations led the people after them to follow
Idols; therefore the effects that belong unto Nature, are to be
attributed to Nature, and the effects that Devils produce, are to be
ascribed unto them, and not one confounded with another. And much to
this purpose the learned Father hath a very considerable passage:
“_Quicquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profectò minus est quàm
totus hic mundus, i. e. cœlum & terra, & omnia quæ in eis sunt, quæ
certè Deus fecit: nam & omni miraculo quod fit per hominem, majus
miraculum est homo. Quamvis igitur miracula visibilium naturarum videndi
assiduitate vilescunt, tamen ea quum sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis
rarísq; majora sunt._”
[Sidenote: Job 1. 11. & 2. 5.]
[Sidenote: 2 Pet. 2. 4.]
[Sidenote: _August. super Psal._]
4. Though these men should believe the power of the Devil to be great by
his Creation, and not lessened by his Fall (which is doubtful or false)
yet can he not exert, or put this power into execution, but when, where,
as oft, and in what manner, as God doth send, order, direct, and command
him: and could not enter into the herd of Swine, until that Christ had
ordered and commanded him; nor to touch _Job_ or afflict him either in
his goods or body, until that God had given him licence and order with
express limitation how far he should proceed, and no further. In all
which there appeareth nothing at all of his power, but his malice and
evil will; and what was effected, was the hand of the Lord, and he but
the bare Instrument to execute and perform the command. Therefore to
ascribe to the Devil the efficiency of those operations we do not
clearly understand, is to allow him a kind of Omnipotency, and both to
rob God and Nature of that which belongeth unto them; for the Almighty
doth work whatsoever he pleases both in Heaven and Earth, and it is he
that worketh all in all. And the Devil is but as Gods Executioner to
fulfil his will in tempting men, and punishing the wicked, and can act
nothing but as God commands him, except the acts of his wicked and
depraved will; for he is with all his Angels delivered into chains of
darkness to be reserved unto Judgment. To this purpose there is a very
true and Christian saying of St. _Augustine_ in these words: “_Diabolus
plerumq; vult nocere, & non potest, quia potestas ista est sub
potestate: nam si tantum posset nocere Diabolus quantum vult, aliquis
justorum non remaneret._”
[Sidenote: _Rule 5._]
5. The last Rule I shall observe is, That men, if they mean to profit by
reading Controversies of this nature, they must prudently and
deliberately consider the design that Authors have had in writing. For
though it be the general pretence of all, that they write to confute
errours, and to maintain truth, yet very few in Disputes of this nature
have sincerely performed this pretended end. For some have written (as
we shall hereafter make manifest in due place) upon designed purpose,
thereby to establish some points in their corrupted and superstitious
Religion. Some because of their own lucre and profit arising by the
upholding of these opinions of the great power and performances of
Witches, as did all the Inquisitors and their Adherents, having a share
in the condemned Witches goods. Others have written in these Subjects
meerly for ostentation and vain-glory, to get a name that they were
learned and able persons: of all which the judicious Readers ought to
beware of, and to consider. There is another main scandal that
Witchmongers usually (especially of late) cast upon those that oppose
their gross, impious, and blasphemous opinions; but I cannot seasonably
give answer unto it, untill I have laid down the state of the question,
upon which the substance of this Treatise is grounded, and therefore
shall proceed to its Explication.