I don't think so
Authorities at the time didn't really believe it
There's a whole thing with the witch trials, where, for the most part, the authorities (church and state) were skeptical of the powers attributed to witchcraft and generally tried to apply a moderating hand. Torture of suspected witches was frowned on, for eg, but they couldn't always stop it. (The church was much more concerned with heresy, and too much belief in witchcraft - and witchhunters as saviours - was perceived as more heretical and pagan than the witchcraft itself. A lady turning her neighbour's butter rancid is not really a threat to the power structure of the church.) In England, the vast majority of accused witches were acquitted if they could get before a magistrate, because there needed to be some proof (showing a real chain of cause and effect, if a magical one, between the accused actions and the damage done), and hearsay wasn't enough evidence.
(The witch trial mythos doesn't fit the reality very well)
But the justice system wasn't strongly centralised - lots of places could wait many many months before the assizes (travelling magistrate/courts) came their way. So the places where witch trials got really out of hand tended to be rural and distant from the courts. Church scholars generally didn't believe witches could fly, but villagers out in the sticks might have.
