2. If Mr. _Scot_ hath done little but told odd tales and silly Legends, Mr. _Glanvil_ might very well have born with him; for I am sure his story of the Drummer, and his other of Witchcraft are as odd and silly, as any can be told or read, and are as futilous, incredible, ludicrous, and ridiculous as any can be. And if the tales that _Scot_ tells be odd and silly, they are the most of them taken from those pitiful lying Witchmongers, such as _Delrio_, _Bodinus_, _Springerus_, _Remigius_, and the like, the Authors that are most esteemed with Dr. _Casaubon_, and other Witchmongers, of whom we shall say more hereafter. 3. For Mr. _Glanvil_ to give general accusations without particular proofs, as to say _Scots_ reasonings are trifling and childish, and when he ventures at Philosophy, he is little better than absurd, do plainly manifest the mans malice, and discover his weakness: For _dolus versatur in universalibus_, and no man ought to be condemned without particular and punctual proof, as to the time, place, and all other circumstances, which Mr. _Glanvil_ could not do, and therefore he only gives general calumniations without ground; and if _Scot_ were little better than absurd, then he the better agrees with Mr. _Glanvil_, whose Platonical Whimseys are as absurd as any, as we shall sufficiently prove hereafter. 4. Dr. _Casaubon_ must needs have been highly elevated with the desire of censuring, when he would condemn a man without reading his Book, or serious weighing the force of his arguments, this concludes him of vast weakness, and of great perversness of mind, as all rational men may judge; for in effect it is this, _Scot_ is an illiterate Wretch, and his Book full of errors, but I never read it, but as I have looked upon it at a friends house, or a Book-sellers Shop: is not this a wretched ground whereupon to build so wretched a foundation, as thereby to judge him an illiterate Wretch? And to censure him by the report of others, is as unjust, weak, and childish as the former; and though Dr. _Reynolds_ were a learned man, it doth not appear for what particular point or errour he censured Scot, and therefore is but a general and groundless charge, sheltred under the colour of Dr. _Reynolds_ reputation, an evidence, in Reason and Law, of no weight or validity.