3. What man of reason and judgment could have believed, that Mr. _Glanvil_ or Dr. _Casaubon_, being persons that pretend to a great share of Learning, and to be exact in their ways of arguing, would have committed so pitiful and gross a fault, as is _fallacia consequentis_? For if I deny that a Witch cannot flye in the air, nor be transformed or transsubstantiated into a Cat, a Dog, or an Hare, or that the Witch maketh any visible Covenant with the Devil, or that he sucketh on their bodies, or that the Devil hath carnal Copulation with them; I do not thereby deny either the Being of Witches, nor other properties that they may have, for which they may be so called: no more than if I deny that a Dog hath rugibility (which is only proper to a Lion) doth it follow that I deny the being of a Dog, or that he hath latrability? this is meer inconsequential, and hath no connexion. So if I deny that a man cannot flye by his natural abilities in the air like a Bird, nor live continually in the Sea as a fish, nor in the earth as a Worm or Mole, this doth not at all infer that I deny the existence of man, nor his other properties of risibility, rationality, or the like. But this is the learned Logick, and the clear ways of arguing that these men use. [Sidenote: _Pag. 76._] [Sidenote: 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.