Part 3

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.