_Contemporary Notices of Scot._—Of strictly contemporary notices, I know of but two. In Nash’s _Four Letters Confuted_, 1593, he asks, ed. Grosart, ii, 252: “How is the _Supplication_ a diabolicall Discourse, otherwise than as it intreats of the diverse natures and properties of Divels and spirits? in that far fetcht sense may the famous _defensative against supposed Prophecies_, and _the Discoverie of Witchcraft_ be called notorious Diabolicall discourses, as well as the _Supplication_, for they also intreate of the illusions and sundrie operations of spirits.” The second is in Gabriel Harvey’s _Pierce’s Supererogation_, 1593, ed. Grosart, ii, 291: “Scottes discoovery of Witchcraft, dismasketh sundry egregious impostures, and in certaine principall Chapters, & speciall passages, hitteth the nayle on the head with a witnesse: howsoever I could have wished, [G. H. is nothing if he be not quasi-critical and emending] he had either dealt somewhat more curteously with Monsieur Bodine, or cōfuted him somewhat more effectually.” Of course, various of the after-writers on witchcraft, whichever side they took, either spoke of him explicitly, or alluded to him; Webster, Wagstaffe, Ady, and others, on the same side as Scot, and Meric Casaubon, Cotta, etc., ending with Glanvil on the other. But these, the really curious in such matters may be left to search out for themselves. Only I would like to mention John Deacon’s and John Walker’s _Dialogicall Discourses of ... Devils_ [etc.], 1601, both because they, being clergymen, had the boldness—besides adding new arguments of their own, and though their wording is somewhat less decided than their own evident belief—out of three explanations of the case of the Witch of Endor which they set before the reader, to plainly prefer Scot’s view of her ventriloquism, both naming him in the text, and giving the reference to his page in their margin; and secondly, because so far as a hasty look enables one to give an opinion, they spoke more rationally on magical and other points than one would at that date expect. They also quote the opinion of Hippocrates on magical cures, as given by Scot, p. 450, and show that they take it, though not literally, from him, and not from Hippocrates directly, by giving a reference to Scot in the margin. Afterwards they published in 1603, a second large work, _A summarie_[?] _answer to John Darrell_, the first work having been also suggested by the same impostor, and his setting forth of himself as a caster out of devils.