ndeavoured to disabuse the public mind on this subject. The most
celebrated were Wierus in Germany, Pietro d'Apone in Italy, and
Reginald Scot in England. Their works excited the attention of the
zealous James, who, mindful of the involuntary compliment which his
merits had extorted from the devil, was ambitious to deserve it by
still continuing "his greatest enemie." In the year 1597 he published,
in Edinburgh, his famous treatise on Demonology. Its design may be
gathered from the following passage in the introduction. "The fearful
abounding," says the King, "at this time, and in this country, of these
detestable slaves of the devil, the witches, or enchanters, hath moved
me, beloved reader, to despatch in post this following treatise of
mine, not in any wise, as I protest, to serve for a show of mine own
learning and ingene (ingenuity), but only (moved of conscience) to
press thereby, so far as I can, to resolve the doubting hearts of many;
both that such assaults of Satan are most certainly practised, and that
the instrument thereof merits most severely to be punished, against the
damnable opinions of two, principally in our age, whereof the one,
called Scot, an Englishman, is not ashamed, in public print, to deny
that there can be such thing as witchcraft, and so maintains the old
error of the Sadducees, in denying of spirits. The other, called
Wierus, a German physician, sets out a public apology for all these
crafts-folks, whereby procuring for them impunity, he plainly betrays
himself to have been one of that profession." In other parts of this
treatise, which the author had put into the form of a dialogue to "make
it more pleasant and facile," he says, "Witches ought to be put to
death, according to the law of God, the civil and imperial law, and the
municipal law of all Christian nations: yea, to spare the life, and not
strike whom God bids strike, and so severely punish in so odious a
treason against God, is not only unlawful, but doubtless as great a sin
in the magistrate, as was Saul's sparing Agag." He says also, that the
crime is so abominable, that it may be proved by evidence which would
not be received against any other offenders,--young children, who knew
not the nature of an oath, and persons of an infamous character, being
sufficient witnesses against them; but lest the innocent should be
accused of a crime so difficult to be acquitted of, he recommends that
in all cases the ordeal should be resorted