Possibly the reader may now expect some pages on Scot’s style as a writer, and on his claim—his claim, yet not one made by himself—to be considered an English classic. But, besides that, I am not “greatly æsthetic”, and besides having expressed my opinions in more than one place in this Introduction, I think that any reader, with any appreciation of style, and of the manner in which an argument ought to be carried out, can come to but one conclusion. Such belief, I may add, is strengthened by this, that most writers whom I have consulted are of this opinion: and I would conclude with three quotations, chiefly regarding the way in which he carried out his argument. The Rev. Jos. Hunter, in his MS. _Chorus Vatum_, ch. v, says: “In fact, I had no notion of the admirable character of this book till I read it this September 1839. It is one of the few instances in which a bold spirit opposes himself to the popular belief, and seeks to throw protection over a class of the defenceless. In my opinion, he ought to stand very prominent in any catalogue of Persons who have been public benefactors.” “To answer his argument was wholly impossible, and though the publication of his book did not put an end to the notion which continued very prevalent for a century afterwards [though we know from Ady that it greatly checked the belief for a time], yet it had, I have no doubt, much to do with the silent and gradual extinction of it.” So D’Israeli, in his _Amenities of Literature_, has these words: “A single volume sent forth from the privacy of a retired student, by its silent influence may mark an epoch in the history of the human mind.” “Such a volume was _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_, by Reginald Scot, a singular work, which may justly claim the honour in this country of opening that glorious career which is dear to humanity and fatal to imposture.”