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.
I have said on p. _xxii_ that the discovery of Scot’s name in the Subsidy Rolls for 1586 and 1587 with the affix of “Armiger” was for me an important find. And now I would explain that it was so, inasmuch as it set my mind at rest as to the oneness of the Raynold of the _Hoppe-garden_ with the Reginald Scot Esquire, of the _Witchcraft_. Aware that Reynold and Reginald were variants of one name, used of and by the same person, the following facts hindered me for a long time from accepting the common belief that the Raynold and Reginald of these two works were one and the same. First, the author of the _Hoppe-garden_ in each of his signatures to the editions of 1574-6-8, three in each, appears as Raynold. In the marriage entry, in the pay-account of the Kent forces, in the Muster-roll, and in the Will, it is also Raynold. But in 1584, throughout the _Witchcraft_, that is, four times in all, the name appears as Reginald. Secondly, in the Will of 1599, in accordance with the want of any title on the title-page of the _Hoppe-garden_, he describes himself as “gent”, and in the Inquisitio p. m., though he is called Reginald, the document being in Latin, he is, as in his Will, “generosus”. But in the title-page of the _Witchcraft_, he is Reginald Scot Esquire. The finding no evidence of the separate existence of a Raynold and a Reginald, the frequent references to the Scriptures in the _Witchcraft_, and the very frequent references to the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, in the “Address to the Reader” of the _Hoppe-garden_, the use in both works, as already quoted, of certain legal phrases, and the occurrence in the prefatory part of the _Hoppe-garden_ of “with the licour (or rather the lucre)”, and “condemne the man, or rather the mynde”, a trick of language not unfrequently repeated in the _Discoverie_, a trick resulting from his love of irony, shook my doubts. But there were still, the want of any title after the name in the _Hoppe-garden_, the “gent” of the Will, and the “generosus” of the Inquisitio, as against the “Esquire” of the _Discoverie_. First, however, Hunter’s suggestion, that his esquireship was due to his having been appointed a Justice of the Peace, and then the discovery of armiger after his name, have removed all reasonable doubts; and to turn our belief to a positive certainty, it only remains to discover that he was a Justice of the Peace.