The displaying of supposed witchcraft

by John Webster

Pag. 76.

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.