extraordinary elevation of good sense, he managed, not only to see
through the absurdities of witchcraft, but likewise of other errors
which long maintained their hold upon the learned as well as the
vulgar. Indeed, if not generally more enlightened, he was, in some
respects, more emancipated from delusion than even his great
successor, the learned and sagacious Webster, who, a century after,
clung still to alchemy which Reginald Scot had ridiculed and exposed.
Yet with all its strong points and broad humour, it is undeniable that
_The Discoverie of Witchcraft_ only scotched the snake instead of
killing it; and that its effect was any thing but final and complete.
Inveterate error is seldom prostrated by a blow from one hand, and
truth seems to be a tree which cannot be forced by planting it before
its time. There was something, too, in the book itself which militated
against its entire acceptance by the public. It is intended to form a
little Encyclopædia of the different arts of imposition practised in
Scot's time; and in order to illustrate the various tricks and modes
of cozenage, he gives us so many charms and diagrams and conjurations,
to say nothing of an inventory of seventy-nine devils and spirits, and
their several seignories and degrees, that the _Occult Philosophy_ of
Cornelius Agrippa himself looks scarcely less appalling, at first
sight, than the _Discoverie_. This gave some colour to the declamation
of the author's opponents, who held him up as Wierus had been
represented before him, as if he were as deeply dipped in diabolical
practises as any of those whom he defended. Atheist and Sadducee, if
not very wizard himself, were the terms in which his name was
generally mentioned, and as such, the royal author of the _Demonology_
anathematizes him with great unction and very edifying horror. Against
the papists, the satire of Scot had been almost as much directed as
against what he calls the "witch-mongers," so that that very powerful
party were to a man opposed to him. Vigorous, therefore, as was his