or October in 1599, and was buried among his ancestors, in the church at Smeeth before mentioned.”  Retired as his life and obscure as his death might be, he is one whose name will be remembered as long as vigorous sense, flowing from the “wells of English undefiled,” hearty and radiant humour, and sterling patriotism, are considered as deserving of commemoration.  His Discoverie of Witchcraft, first published in 1584, is indeed a treat to him who wishes to study the idioms, manners, opinions, and superstitions of the reign of Elizabeth.  Its entire title deserves to be given:—­

“The discouerie of witchcraft, wherein the lewde dealing of witches and witchmongers is notablie detected, the knauerie of coniurors, the impietie of inchantors, the follie of soothsaiers, the impudent falshood of cousenors, the infidelitie of atheists, the pestilent practises of Pythonists, the curiositie of figurecasters, the vanitie of dreamers, the beggerlie art of Alcumystrie, the abhomination of idolatrie, the horrible art of poisoning, the vertue and power of naturall magike, and all the conueiances of Legierdemaine and iuggling are deciphered:  and many other things opened, which haue long lien hidden, howbeit verie necessarie to be knowne.  Heerevnto is added a treatise vpon the nature and substance of spirits and diuels, &c:  all latelie written by Reginald Scot Esquire. 1 John, 4, 1. Beleeue not euerie spirit but trie the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world, &c. 1584.”

[Footnote 14:  Reginald Scot.]

[Footnote 15:  Sir R. Filmer.]

[Footnote 16:  John Wagstaffe.]

[Footnote 17:  John Webster.]

This title is sufficient to show that he gives no quarter to the delusion he undertakes to expose, and though he does not deny that there may be witches in the abstract, (to have done so would have left him a preacher without an audience,) yet he guards so cautiously against any practical application of that principle, and battles so vigorously against the error which assimilated the witches of modern times to the witches of Scripture, and, denying the validity of the confessions of those convicted, throws such discredit and ridicule upon the whole system, that the popular belief cannot but have received a severe shock from the publication of his work.[18] By an 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