Chapter X: Part 10

There is another rule which the learned do use, in expounding of the Scriptures, which is often either too far extended, or not rightly limited and applied, which is this; That Men in interpreting of the Scriptures should keep close to the literal sense, if it include not an absolute absurdity. Whereby Allegorical, Metaphorical, Mystical and Parabolical Expositions are not only cried down, but by some even abhorred and detested, which thing ought not absolutely and simply to be approved of; and therefore we shall make it plain in some few particulars.

[Sidenote: John 9. 6, 7.]

1. In Historical relations of matters of fact, we ought to keep close to the literal meaning, and not to deviate a jot from it, otherwise we should overthrow the best part of the Christian Faith, and destroy the chief foundation of Scripture truths. But notwithstanding this, though we ought to hold to the literal sense in respect of the matter of fact, yet we are not always to be bound to the bare letter in the mood, means or manner of the performance. As may be plain in these examples. 1. It is apparent that our Saviour Christ cured the Man that was born blind, and the means and manner is described: _He spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore and washed, and came seeing._ Now as to the matter of fact, that the Man born blind was cured and had his sight restored, is a truth according to the sense of the letter; and that the manner, which was by spittle and earth made into Clay, and his eyes covered or anointed with it, and washing in the pool of _Siloam_, was also literally true, is manifest. But it were absurd so far to stick to the letter, as to believe that clay, and spittle, and washing in the poole _Siloam_, were true and real natural means to produce that effect; no, that were absurd, and therein the literal sense is not to be followed.

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 22. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.]

[Sidenote: Jerem. 23. 24.]

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 8. 27.]

[Sidenote: Rom. 16. 27.]

2. Again concerning _Ahab_, thus much is literally true in matter of fact that he was perswaded to go up to _Ramoth Gilead_ by his false Prophets in whose mouths there was a lying Spirit. But the manner there declared of sending the lying Spirit into their Mouths, cannot rationally be presumed to be true in a literal sense, but in a Metaphorical; for that the Lord was set on his Throne, and all the Host of Heaven standing by him, on the right hand and on the left, must needs be a Metaphor taken from an Emperour or a King that sits on his Throne, and all his Counsellors, Princes, Estates and Officers about him, to deliberate and consult what is to be done. And this is the highest and most apt Metaphor that the supream Majesty of Heaven and Earth can be represented by; not that in the literal sense it must be believed to be acted just in that mood and manner, but as the most apposite Metaphor that can be found to express the proceedings of the Heavenly Majesty by, and that for these reasons. 1. God is Infinite and is every where by his Power, Essence and Presence, and therefore cannot literally be said to be comprehended in any locality, but after a Metaphorical sense and expression. For the Prophet saith: _Do not I fill Heaven and Earth, saith the Lord?_ And as _Solomon_ confesseth: _But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Behold, the heaven, and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house that I have builded?_ 2. God who is only wise, and before whose eyes _all things lie open, and naked_, cannot litterally be said to consult or deliberate, or to ask his creatures how a thing shall be done or brought to pass, because his wisdom is, like himself, Infinite, and need ask counsel of none, and therefore must the manner of the performance of the deceiving of _Ahabs_ Prophets needs be Metaphorically understood, and not literally, which is the thing that we would demonstrate.

[Sidenote: 1 John 1. 5.]

[Sidenote: 1 Tim. 6. 16.]

3. Further concerning Satans afflicting of _Job_ in his Goods, Cattels, Children, Servants, and in his own Body, is a real truth literally so taken as to the matter of fact; but the manner of Satans appearing before God, with the Sons of God, cannot without manifest absurdity be understood in a literal sense but in a Metaphorical, that God who is Omnipotent, did command, order, send and limit him, what and how far he was to act. For otherwise _God is light in whom there is no darkness at all, dwelling in the light which no Man can approach unto_; but Satan is bound _in chains of everlasting darkness_, and therefore cannot be said literally to appear in person before God, but by way of a Metaphor. So when the Angel telleth the Virgin _Mary_, that the should conceive in her womb, and she not understanding how that should come to pass, because she had not known Man, the Angel answered, _the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee_. Though the matter of fact be an undoubted truth, and an Article of faith, literally so taken; yet the manner of the Holy Ghosts coming upon her, and the power of the highest overshadowing her, cannot be understood in a literal sense, as though it were by that natural and humane way that Men and Women do beget and conceive Children by, for that were horrid and absurd (as some late prophane, wretched and debauched Atheists have spattered forth) but after a Metaphorical sense, and a most mystical meaning. So that it is plain that where a matter of fact may be literally and Historically true, yet the manner how that matter of fact is brought to pass may be, nay must be Metaphorical, or else an absurdity will follow, which was the thing undertaken to be proved.

4. There is nothing more common and usual in Scripture than Metaphors, as when Christ saith, _I am a vine, I am the door of the sheep, I am the living bread that came down from heaven_: Though they be Metaphors, yet the things signified and intended by them are as really and certainly true, as are the Metaphors themselves, and sometimes more true; because sometime the Metaphor is not used for the verity of its existence, but according to the common use and opinion, as _O foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you?_ doth intend no more but an allusion to vulgar opinion, that held that men might be bewitched and inchanted. And so Christ in the true mystical and spiritual meaning is as really a spiritual vine, door and bread, as there are any of such things in nature, or being. But as that which is Literally and Historically true in matter of fact, or meaning, is not to be deceeded from; so that which is a Metaphor ought not to be turned into a literal thing, nor on the contrary, the literal sense ought not to be made Metaphorical.

[Sidenote: Matth. 7. 24, 25, 26, 27.]

5. Parables are Similitudes taken from things that may have been done, or that are supposed to have been done, and so the thing to which the comparison is made, or from whence the Similitude is taken, need not always be a thing that hath been performed in all the circumstances and manner thereof; it is sufficient that the thing was possible, or rationally probable to have been acted, or at least supposed so to have been. As for instance in that Parable, where our Saviour saith: _That those that hear his words and do them are like a wise man that built his house upon a rock; and he that heareth them, and doth them not, is like a foolish man, that built his house upon the sand_: now it is not necessary that there should be two such men, that in matter of fact did after that manner (though there might have been many men before the time of our Saviour that might have done so) but it was sufficient that the thing from which the comparison was made, was possible, rational and probable. But the thing intended by the Parable or Similitude, is alwayes a spiritual truth and certainty. Concerning which learned _Beza_ upon the Parable of the Rich Man and _Lazarus_ doth give us this remarkable Marginal note: “Although Christ doth relate an History, notwithstanding he writeth spiritual things under Figures, which he knew were suitable to our sense. For neither are Souls endowed with Fingers and Eyes, neither do they suffer thirst, neither have they mutual conference one with another. Therefore the sum is, that faithful Souls after they be departed from their Bodies, do lead a pleasant and blessed life without the World: And that most horrible torments are prepared for the reprobates, which can no more be conceived by our minds, than the immense Glory of Heaven.”

[Sidenote: _De Civitat. Dei_ _lib._ 13. _c._ 21. _p._ 404.]

[Sidenote: _Ut supra_ _l._ 15. _c._ 27. _p._ 475.]

6. As for an Allegory, which is a continuation of a Metaphor, and properly signifies a figure expressing one thing by another, from ἄλλος, and ἀγορέω, _enuntio_, and this is very frequently used in the Scriptures, as when the Apostle speaking of the two Sons of _Abraham_, _the one from Hagar a bond-woman, the other from Sarah a free woman_, saith: _These things are an Allegorie_, ἅτενα ἀλληγορόυμενα, which things do express one thing by another; From whence we may note, 1. That Allegories that tend to edification, keeping the Analogie of Faith, and not perverting or overthrowing the literal sense, ought not to be so much cried down nor condemned, as some have done both against _Origen_ and others. “For the Apostle here, as _Beza_ hath noted, made it manifest, that he had followed the footsteps of the Prophet _Isaiah_, who did foretel that the Church was to be constituted of the Children of Sarah that was barren, that is to say of those who meerly and spiritually were by Faith to be made the Sons of _Abraham_, rather than of _Hagar_ that was fruitful, even then foretelling the rejection of the Jews, and the vocation of the Gentiles.” 2. Allegories may be used, and the literal sense nevertheless preserved also for the History is literally true that _Sarah_ and _Hagar_ were two living Women, the one _Abrahams_ Wife a free Woman, the other his Servant, and a bond-woman, and yet this did not hinder but that thereby an Allegory might be used, and they might, and did signifie and express another thing than what was meerly contained in the letter. 3. We cannot here but add the grave and learned opinion of S. _Augustin_ upon this very point, who rejecting the tenent of some that made Paradise and the things therein contained, meerly corporal, and of some that made it only spiritual and intelligible, doth run a middle course betwixt these two extreams, saying thus: “As though Paradise could not be corporal, because also it might be understood to be spiritual: As though therefore there were not two Women _Agar_ and _Sarah_, and of them two Sons of _Abraham_, one of the bond-woman, the other of the free woman, because the Apostle saith that the two Testaments were prefigured in them; or therefore that water had flowed from no rock _Moses_ smiting, because there by a figurative signification Christ also may be understood, the Apostle saying, _and the rock was Christ_.” And after concludeth thus: “These and some others may be spoken of understanding Paradise spiritually, and may be spoken without contradiction, while notwithstanding the most faithful verity of that History may be believed in the commendable narration of the things done or performed.” This same opinion this learned Father doth maintain in another place, where he is speaking of the Ark of _Noah_.

Having premised these rules for the right expounding of the Scriptures, we shall now come to the main things that we purpose to handle in this Chapter. And those that would uphold a kind of omnipotency in Devils, and maintain their great power in Elementary and Sublunary things, the better to defend the great power of Witches, do alledge divers places of Scripture, and expound them in favour of their gross tenents, which now we shall examine and confute in order as they lie.

1. The first colourable argument that they produce, is from the Devils or the Serpents tempting and seducing of _Eve_, where labouring to prove the Devils power, and his visible apparition to Witches, and making a compact with them, they pretend that in the seducing of _Eve_ he did visibly appear unto her and vocally discourse with her, and to that purpose that he essentially entred into the Body of the Serpent, and spoke through its Organs, or that he assumed the visible and corporeal shape of a Serpent, and so discoursed, and had collocution with her. To answer which (that we may proceed methodically,) we shall lay down and labour to prove these two positions. 1. That if it were granted that he did it either way, it would be no advantage, thereby to prove the ordinary power of Devils or Witches.

2. That that place of Scripture, if rightly weighed and considered, will no way make it rationally appear, that the Devil performed that temptation any other way but only mentally; and that the History there in the manner and circumstances of it, is only to be Allegorically and Metaphorically expounded. And as to the first, if it were granted it proves nothing to the purpose, for the power of Devils or Witches, as these two Arguments will sufficiently evince.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

1. From no single instance or particular proposition, can ever a general conclusion be rightly drawn by any known and certain rules of Reason or Logick; for _Syllogizari non est ex particulari_, is known to any Tyronist in that Art. But if Satan for that once should have entred into the natural Serpent, or assumed his shape, it is a deceivable and vitious way of arguing, that therefore he hath such a power over all Bodies at all times when he pleaseth, or that he can assume what shape he please, and therefore it certainly and rationally concludeth nothing of validity.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

[Sidenote: 1 Cor. 10. 13.]

2. In the temptation of _Eve_, there was something more extraordinary than can be assigned in any other temptation whatsoever, except that of Christ. And therefore was there a more peculiar and extraordinary dispensation from God in that case than can be shewed in any others but that of Christ. For now it pleaseth God in his merciful providence, so to order and overrule the malice of his hellish will, and to restrain and bridle his envious nature, that though his will be never so wicked, yet is he kept in his chains of darkness, _and God will not suffer his people to be tempted, above what they are able, but will with the temptation also make way to escape that they may be able to bear it_. Now _Adam_ and _Eve_ were in an extraordinary condition in respect of the Saints of God in this life, or of any other persons, and there was a more high and greater end in the providence of God in ordering and permitting of that temptation than there is or can be in any others, but that of Christ: And therefore from what the Lord permitted, and ordered to do in that temptation, or the liberty that he might grant him to exert his own power then, will no argument rationally follow that he can commonly and at his pleasure perform as much, and so maketh no firm conclusion.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Pererii Comment. in locum._]

And as concerning that place of Scripture in the third of _Genesis_ the great and learned Jesuit _Pererius_ doth undertake with tooth and nail to prove that it is to be literally interpreted, and that Satan did really enter into the Body of the natural Serpent, and spoke in him, or through his Organs; and laboureth (though in vain) to enervate and overthrow the strong arguments of his Brother in Religion, the most learned Cardinal _Cajetan_, Where he rejecteth the opinion of those that hold that the Devil did assume a Body in the shape of a Serpent; because (he saith) that Satan presently after the temptation ended must have deposited and put off the assumed body, but that the Serpent was after in Paradise, and therefore that he did not act it in an assumed Body. Therefore we shall also pass by that opinion of assuming of Bodies, as being a meer groundless figment invented by the dreaming Schoolmen, as we shall demonstrate hereafter. But to proceed in order, We shall first shew that the place must of necessity admit of an Allegory or Metaphor. And secondly, we shall lay down positive Arguments to shew the absurdity and impossibility of the Devils speaking in the Serpent, or by his Organs. And thirdly, we shall answer all objections that are material, and that in these particulars.

1. The thing that in that History is to be taken literally, is that _Eve_ was tempted and seduced; but the instrument by which it was done, the manner and circumstances, must of necessity have an Allegorical or Metaphorical interpretation, otherwise no sense rationally can be made of the place at all.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Dialog._ Discourses of Spirits and Devils. _Dialog._ 4.
_p._ 110.]

2. “There can no blame of the action be imputed to Satan himself, if neither absolutely, nor properly, nor Historically, nor Allegorically, nor Metaphorically, nor no ways else he be named in that very History of _Evahs_ tentation, wherein the action it self with the several circumstances is fully and plainly expressed. For the action especially being so weighty a matter, was necessary to be known in every point: And therefore it is not to be doubted, but that the History concerning the same is so exactly set forth, with every circumstance, as that any Man may be able to judge of the principal Actors therein at the least. So then, although the Devil in that History, be neither absolutely, nor Historically, nor properly expressed by name; yet must we acknowledge him to be therein Allegorically and Metaphorically set forth at the least, or otherways impose no blame upon him at all concerning the action.” And therefore must _Pererius_ needs confess a Metaphor in the place, or else the Devil cannot be made an actor in the business.

3. It was no natural Serpent but the Devil himself Metaphorically set forth by the name of a Serpent, who gave the onset upon _Evah_ in that tentation. For by Allegories and Metaphors there is evermore some other thing meant than that which is literally expressed. And that this is so, is thus proved. If in that action the Devil himself be not Historically and properly, but Allegorically and Metaphorically, called a Serpent, because he is most crafty and subtile; then undoubtedly the objection of a natural Serpent to be used in that action is very inconvenient: But the antecedent is true, and therefore also the consequent.

[Sidenote: Apoc. 12. 3, 4, 5.]

[Sidenote: _Id._ 20. 2.]

4. The antecedent to that Hypothetical Argument foregoing is easily thus proved: It is an accustomed thing in the Sacred Scriptures to use the names of other creatures in setting forth to our sense the Intellectual Creatures themselves. Hereupon it is that in the _Apocalypse_ the Devil (by a perpetual Allegory) is called a Dragon or Serpent: And therefore in this History of _Evahs_ tentation, by the like perpetual Allegory he is also called a Serpent. For no Man can be so absurd and foolish to think that the Devil literally and properly (in that of the Revelation) can be called a Dragon or Serpent; but only in a Metaphorical and Mystical sense, and therefore must in right reason be taken so in that place of _Genesis_; for one part of Scripture is alwaies best interpreted by another.

[Sidenote: Gen. 49. 9.]

[Sidenote: Revel. 5. 5.]

[Sidenote: Matth. 3. 7.]

5. Again how can _Judah_ literally _be a lions whelp_, or Christ _called the lion of the tribe of Judah_? must it needs be understood that Christ either assumed the shape of a natural Lion, or that he entred into the Body of a natural Lion? Surely not, that were most absurd to think or believe. Even so must it be accounted most absurd and abominable for _Pererius_, or any other to fancy that the Devil may not properly enough in an Allegory, or Mystical sense be called a Serpent in that action of tempting of _Evah_, without either assuming the shape of a Serpent, or entring into the Body of a natural one. I appeal to all rational Men to judge if the absurdities of both be not alike, if barely and literally taken. But this being one of _Cajetans_ Arguments, was too hard a morsel for the teeth of _Pererius_; and therefore he past it over without an answer. Further when our Saviour called the Pharisees, and Sadducees _a generation of vipers_, must any Man be so extreamly mad as to believe that naturally and literally they were generated by vipers? Must it not be understood that they were called so from their poysonous and wicked minds, by way of Metaphor? Yes surely: and so is the Devil called a Serpent by a Metaphor, or else literally so taken, both appellations are equally absurd. And let _Pererius_ or any other unloose this knot.

[Sidenote: John 8. 44.]

6. How can the Devil be a very _murtherer from the beginning_, (which he is Mystically so considered) if he had no hand in the destroying of _Evah_ and _Adam_ both in Souls and Bodies? But if by the Serpent the Devil was not understood, then he stands acquitted, and was not guilty of the murdering _Adam_ and _Evah_ both in Souls and Bodies. But we must affirm that all learned and rational Divines, whether antient, middle or modern, that have expounded or commented upon that place, do by the words of our Saviour _calling Satan a murderer from the beginning_, understand the murdering of _Adam_ and _Evah_ both in Souls and Bodies; And we dare referr all those that have taken, or will take pains to examine them upon that piece of Scripture, that they shall be found as we have averred.

[Sidenote: 2 Cor. 11. 3.]

7. _Moses_ (in that action) doth purposely intitle the Devil by the name of a Serpent, because (by his effectual creeping into the interiour senses, as also by infecting Mens minds with venomous perswasions) he doth very lively represent the nature, disposition and qualities of the venemous Serpent. And in this same sense was the Apostle jealous over the _Corinthians_, left as _that Serpent_ ὁ ὄφις, (which must necessarily be understood of Satan by a Metaphor of that Serpent) _beguiled Evah through his subtilty_, so they might by the cunning of Satan in his false Apostles _have their minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ_.

8. The Serpent that tempted _Evah_ in Paradise, is there said to be _more subtile than every beast of the field_, the which (if the writing of such as have observed and described the nature of all sorts of animals be true) cannot be avouched truly of the natural Serpent. For there are many other creatures more subtil than the Serpent. And therefore it must needs be understood of the spiritual Serpent, that is, Satan who is (indeed) the old Serpent.

[Sidenote: Judg. 9. 7, 8, 9, 10, &c.]

9. _Moses_ doth therefore purposely attribute speech to the Serpent which tempted _Evah_, to the end we (knowing by experience that speech cannot properly accord with a natural Serpent) might the rather be induced to believe that the same must metaphorically be understood of the spiritual Serpent. For we may with like absurdity imagine that _the olive, the fig, the Vine-trees and the Bramble_ did vocally and articulately speak one to another; as to suppose that either the Serpent, or the Devil in the Serpent did use an articulate voice and discourse unto _Evah_; they are both alike credible, and both alike absurd.

10. The punishment inflicted by God, hath no conveniency at all with the natural, but with the spiritual and mystical Serpent, which is the Devil. For neither can the going upon her belly, nor the eating of dust be any punishment at all to the natural Serpent, because (before the tentation) both those properties were peculiarly allotted unto her, she taking her name from her creeping condition, for _Serpens_ is derived _à serpendo_, and in the Hebrew she is called רֶמֶשׂ _reptile à_ רָמַשׂ, _reptavit, serpsit_. Neither yet may we imagine that the said Serpent being of some better form before the tentation, was then (by the just judgment of God) transformed into a viler proportion, property or shape, she being in the History of the Creation accompted amongst the creeping Creatures.

[Sidenote: Exod. 4. 3.]

[Sidenote: _Aug. ad Gen._ _lib._ 11. _cap._ 1.]

[Sidenote: _Greg. in Moràl._]

[Sidenote: Pet. Martyr in Gen. 3. 1.]

11. _Moses_ maketh no mention at all of the Serpents coming to _Evah_ about that business, nor of her departure after the action, nor of any one special property whereby she might be essentially discerned to be (indeed) a true natural Serpent, nor of any manner of amaze, or suddain fear in _Evah_ at her suddain approach and extraordinary speech: whereas yet _Moses_ himself was afterwards horribly afraid at the only sight of a Serpent. And where it is said, _Thou art cursed above all the beasts in the field_; there the very bruit beasts (to the horrible confusion of Satan) are preferred before him; not in absolute power, but in an especial regard of that happy continuance and timely conservation of their original nature. For, the beasts of the field, they do not forgo any heavenly happiness, which they never yet had: But they continue forth their course in that self same primary estate they took at the first. But Satan is accursed because he kept not his first estate, but fell from it, and therefore is worse than the beasts of the field. Neither is this way of expounding the Scriptures metaphorically, where the literal sense includeth an apparent absurdity, either singular or novel, for both Antients and Moderns have allowed the same course, for S. _Augustine_ saith: “When any thing is found in the Scriptures which cannot (without an absurdity) be possibly interpreted literally, That thing without doubt is spoken figuratively, and must receive some other signification, than the bare letter doth seem to import.” And _Gregory_ saith: “When the order of the History becometh defective of it self in the literal sense, then some mystical sense as it were with wide open doors doth offer it self: yea and that mystical sense must be received instead of the literal sense it self.” And therefore (saith _Peter Martyr_) “that malediction or curse which the Lord did cast on the Serpent, must be Allegorically understood of the Devil, and those things which seem properly to accord to the Serpent indeed, must metaphorically be transferred to Satan understood in the Serpent.” So then, by all the premises it is very apparent, that it was the Devil himself, and no natural Serpent, who set upon _Evah_ in that tentation, he being only metaphorically set forth by the name of a Serpent: And therefore had no need in that action essentially to assume to himself the Body of a natural Serpent, for the better accomplishment of the intended business.

The next is to lay down positive Arguments to prove that the Devil did not essentially enter into the body of the Serpent and if he did, that yet neither he by himself, nor the Serpent, and he joyned, could thereby make any articulate sound or discourse. Which if the Devil in the Serpent be supposed (as it is) to perform any such matter, it must be either by considering him as an incorporeal or as a corporeal creature, but we affirm he could perform neither way, and that for these reasons.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 1._]

1. If the Devil be considered as an incorporeal creature simply and absolutely, then it will follow, that he cannot act upon any corporeal matter, because an incorporeal substance can make no contact upon a body, unless it were it self corporeal; for, _quicquid agit, agit per contactum, vel mediatum, vel immediatum._ But both those are caused by the touch of one body upon another, as when ones hand by touching a straw doth immediately move it forth of its place, or else by blowing doth remove it, which is by the mediation of the air; but that which is meerly incorporeal can perform neither: Because that which is meerly incorporeal hath no superficies, whereby to touch the body to be removed; and therefore can make no motion of it at all; and where there is no motion, there can be no alteration, and consequently no speech nor articulation at all. And therefore the Devil (if incorporeal) could not, move the Organs of the Serpent at all, and so could not speak in the Serpent nor move his organs, if they had been fit for articulate prolation, which they were not. Which was the thing required to be proved.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]

2. The Serpent by the ordinance of God in the Creation was specificated to an inarticulate sound, not to an articulate: but the Devil neither hath, nor ever had any power to change and overturn the course of Gods ordination in nature, and therefore hath not power, nor never had to make the Serpent speak articulately; for that were to overthrow the inviolable order of God set in the Creation, which no man of sound judgment did ever aver that the Devil could do.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]

3. I take it to be one of the most firm maximes that ever the Schools had, that, _immateriale non agit in materiale, nisi eminenter ut Deus_: Therefore that the Devil being incorporeal and immaterial cannot act upon that which is material, as was the body of the Serpent, unless he had had a super-eminent and omnipotent power, which were blasphemous to attribute unto him, therefore could he not articulately speak in the Serpent unto _Evah_, because immaterial, and had no omnipotent power.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 4._]

4. And if he be conceived to be corporeal, then he could either of himself speak articulately and audibly, or else not. And if he could do so of himself, then to enter into the Serpent was needless and superfluous. And if he could not, then the entring into the Serpent would not have contributed that faculty unto him, and so neither way he could have performed it; For a Frog creeping into the body of a Man, will not cause the Frog to speak, though it may make some noise or croaking.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 5._]

5. Though the Devil being corporeal should have entred into the body of the Serpent, yet by no motion that could be made with or upon her organs, could they have been framed to have uttered an articulate sound, because they were not fitted for that purpose, but only to have made a sibilation or hissing. For in Instruments that are artificial, the several sounds and tunes made by them, are but agreeable to the diversity of their parts and their several compactions; so an Harp cannot (when made) be ordered to give forth a sound like a Trumpet, nor the noise of a pair of Organs; nor on the contrary: and if any of their parts be wanting, defective or broken, then the orderly sound and Musick is spoyled. And though a Parret or Paraquet may by vocal and external teaching be brought to learn and speak some words; yet it is not by the teachers entring into her belly, but by his outward, vocal teaching, whereby her senses and phantasie are audibly wrought upon, and not otherwise. But in this action ascribed unto Satan, he is not supposed to be able to speak articulately, nor to have taught the Serpent vocally and audibly, which if he could have done, yet were not her organs capable of any such matter; and therefore it had been more subtilty in the Devil rather to have chosen a Parret than a serpent.

The only objection worth taking notice of that _Pererius_ bringeth against the sound and reasonable opinion of learned _Cajetan_, is this: That _Adam_ and _Evah_ being in the state of innocency could not be wrought upon by an interiour tentation, because that neither the sensitive appetite nor the phantasie were corrupted; and therefore Satan could not internally work upon them, and therefore that the whole tentation must be extrinsecal. To which we return this sufficient reply.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 1._]

1. It is but a bare assertion without any proof at all, and he doth but only shelter it under the authority of S. _Austin_ and _Gregory_, whose authority in many other matters he doth often reject when they agree not with his humour, end and interest. But however they are but _testimonia humana_; and we are not to regard what the Men are that do speak, so much as to consider the weight and reason of what they do speak.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]

2. He proceeds upon false supposition, that the sensitive appetite and consequently the Phantasie could not be wrought upon nor drawn, but by a sensible and exteriour object, when it is manifest that the sight of the Serpent alone could not have stirred the sensitive appetite; for it is rationally to be supposed as a certainty that _Evah_ had seen the Serpent before that time. Neither could it be the discourse with the Serpent, barely considered as discourse, that could have moved it; for it is certain she had heard, and had had audible, vocal and articulate discourse with her Husband before this time of the temptation. Neither could it be the beholding of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for by the discourse it appeareth that she had before seen it, and it is probable that the tentation was in the view of it, and its species that appeared to her eye of the said tree was the same that it was before. So that it will be as most manifest that the tentation took effect from the strong lie that Satan told her, _that their eyes should be opened and they should be as Gods knowing good and evil_, and so her deception was first made in her mind and understanding, and thereby the will was drawn, and the sensitive appetite moved, whereupon _she took of the fruit of the tree, and did eat._ And this may far more reasonably be thought to be brought to pass by a mental discourse and internal motions, than by external collocution, which must first work upon the mind, before that the Phantasie or sensitive appetite could at all be moved or drawn.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]

[Sidenote: _Vid._ Is. Piscar. _in locum_.]

3. If the tentation had been this way that _Pererius_ supposeth it, our first parents could not have been seduced; for Satans argument lay not to perswade _Evah_, that it was pleasant for the taste or good for the Stomach thereby to have drawn the sensitive appetite and the Phantasie, but that it was good and profitable to make them wise, _and to be like Gods_, whereby he insnared her understanding with a fallacious and lying argument, thus framed, as learned _Piscator_ lays it down: “That thing which will bring you Divine Wisdom and Felicity, that thing ye ought to make use of. But the eating of this fruit can bring you Divine Wisdom and Felicity: Therefore the eating of the fruit of this tree, ye ought to make use of.” And so the seduction was not at all by the sensitive appetite (that could receive no more benefit by it than by the other fruits in the Garden) but by her understanding being blinded with a specious shew of an apparent (not a real) benefit, and thereby her will drawn and led to put forth her hand, and to eat. And therefore consequently there was no need at all of an extrinsecal tentation, which might and was brought to pass by an intrinsick discourse, working upon her understanding.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 4._]

[Sidenote: _Tom._ 3. _l._ 3. _c._ 19. _p._ 156.]

[Sidenote: _Hieronym. in_ Job. _c._ 24.]

[Sidenote: _Tom._ 7. _p._ 187.]

[Sidenote: 2 Cor. 2. 11.]

4. Surely if _Pererius_ had been aware of the many inconveniences that this opinion of his doth hurry along with it, he would never have plunged himself into a Labyrinth of such perplexities; some of which we shall here enumerate and so conclude. 1. If this opinion were true, that _Evah_ by reason of her perfection in the state of innocency could not be tempted nor seduced, but only by an external way and means: Then how could it come to pass that the Angels in their Primitive Estate, which was as perfect (if not more) than that of _Evahs_, were without a tempter or any external means drawn unto that defection, who left their estate and station, and abode not in the truth? 2. How could the defection have been so general (for multitudes of them fell) if they had not had some way or means to have communicated their cogitations and intentions one to another? For though we are not able to apprehend the manner how they discourse or commune one with another, yet it must be taken for a truth that they have a way and means to manifest their cogitations one to another, which is some way Analogous to that which we call speech or discourse. Therefore concerning this point doth learned and judicious _Zanchy_ thus conclude. “Therefore (he saith) that which we do by a sensible voice, the same thing the Angels and blessed Souls in Heaven, yea the Devils in the infernal pit, and in the air, do perform, but without voice, in a spiritual manner.” 3. If this opinion were true, then the blessed Souls, being divested from their Bodies, should not have a communion one with another, nor should jointly praise and glorifie God together, which were false and absurd; and therefore the learned Father said well: “It is to be holden stedfastly that the offices of the Heavenly Hoast are by no means performed in silence; seeing, we may read that the Angelical powers before the Throne of the Lord, do sound forth his praise with unwearied voices.” 4. The sleights and subtil machinations (for he hath his Νοήματα or devices) of Satans Kingdom could not be carried on, if he had not a way and means to communicate them to the rest of the Crew of his inferiour Fiends, and therefore doth plainly prove that there is a way of hidden, Mystical and Spiritual discourse, which the Devil might, and did represent to the mind and understanding of _Evah_, whereby she was seduced, and that there was no need of a vocal and audible interlocution; and so much in answer to his objection.

The next place of Scripture that is commonly brought and urged thereby to prove the great power of Devils and Witches, is that of _Pharaohs_ Magicians, from whence they argue thus: If the Magicians of _Pharaoh_ were able by the power and assistance of the Devil to change their Rods into Serpents, the Water into Blood, and to produce Frogs; Why may not Witches, by the power and assistance of the Devil, change themselves and other things into strange and several shapes, and do the rest of the feats that are ascribed unto them?

But though this be but _petitio principii_, a begging of the question, that by the assistance of the Devil they did these things, which is neither supposed nor granted, but ought first to have been proved; And though in the case of hardening _Pharaohs_ heart, there might be (and was) a peculiar dispensation from God at that time: yet it will not follow that God doth always dispense with, and give the Devil leave to operate the like things; and so nothing firmly can be concluded from hence. Yet (I say) though these be so, we shall pretermit them, and come to the full opening and discussion of the matter; and that in these two particulars. 1. How far the Devils power and assistance did concurr with the actions and performances. 2. And wherein he did not concurr nor act at all.

[Sidenote: Ephes. 2. 2.]

[Sidenote: 2 Tim. 3. 8.]

1. We shall grant that _Pharaoh_ and the Magicians being Idolaters, and worshippers of false gods, their ends were principally to magnifie the power of their Idols, and to manifest that their supposed gods could work, and bring to pass as strange miracles or wonders as _Moses_ and _Aaron_ could perform by the assistance of the God of the Hebrews; and in respect of this end they had all the assistance that Satan and his dark kingdom of Angels could afford them in a spiritual and hellish way; _for he is the Prince of the power of the air that worketh in the children of disobedience_, for such were both _Pharaoh_ and his Magicians. And to this purpose doth the Apostle tell us, speaking of false and seducing teachers: _That they were like Jannes, and Jambres that withstood Moses, in their resisting of the truth_: so that the Magicians of _Pharaoh_ were condemned for resisting the truth of that message that _Moses_ and _Aaron_ brought, and of those real miracles that they performed; and so in respect of the wicked end they aimed at, they were assisted with the power and concurrence of the Devil, and in that respect only were his servants and instruments.

But as for the second particular, namely, the efficient causes and means of the producing of those things that the Magicians did, we affirm they were performed by the power of nature and art, and that the Devil was no efficient cause of their production, and that by these irrefragable arguments.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

1. Those that affirm that the Devil did or can produce such strange effects, do also acknowledge, that what he performeth in natural and elementary Bodies, is done by applying natural agents to natural and fit patients, which do truly bring to pass such strange effects, and that he doth no more, but only make the local application of them. From whence it must necessarily follow that the effects flow from natural agents, and so no causality at all can be ascribed unto him, except that fictitious one of being _causa sine qua non_, which is as much as no cause. And besides that, there is no proof that he maketh this local application; for if he be incorporeal, then it is simply impossible that he should perform any such matter; and however, a man by natural power and means, if he know the fit and apt actives and passives, may perform them himself, and so his assistance is needless; and we have never yet met with any argument that bore any convincing force that might induce us to believe that he is so great a Naturalist.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

[Sidenote: _De secret. oper. Art. & natur._ _c._ 5.]

[Sidenote: Gen. 30. 37, 38, 39. _&c._]

2. There are many persons that think themselves no mean sharers in the most sorts of learning, and others that are very strait laced in their pretended zeal for godliness, and in detesting the works of Satan, that even startle and shew an abhorrency at the word Magick, if it be but once named, as though there were no Magick but what is diabolical, or that which they call diabolical were any other way evil but only in the end and use: for there are many plants and minerals, that though poysonous, are yet notwithstanding good in respect of their Creation, and the good uses that may be made of them, as to kill noxious animals that are hurtful unto man. But if any force of malice and wickedness should use them to poyson and destroy Men and Women, it were wicked and diabolical in the end and use, yet were the means lawful and natural. So whatsoever the Devil may do by wicked Men, his instruments, in leading and drawing them to make use of the great _magnalia naturæ_, to work strange wonders by, thereby to confirm Idolatry and Superstition, or to resist the truth and such devilish ends, though the end and use may be wicked and diabolical, yet the efficient cause is natural and lawful. And therefore we can find no other ground or reason of dividing Magick into natural and Diabolical, but only that they differ in the end and use: for otherwise they both work by a natural agency and means, seeing the Devil can do nothing above or contrary to that course that God hath set in nature. Therefore may men do without the aid of Devils whatsoever they can do, seeing they have no advantage over us, but operate only by applying active things to passive, like as Men do: And therefore said that most learned Philosopher, Chymist and Mathematician, our Countreyman _Roger Bacon_, excellent well in these words: _non igitur oportet nos uti magicis illusionibus cum potestas Philosophiæ doceat operari quod sufficit_. Therefore are those men that came from the East to worship Christ called Magicians, not because that great knowledge they had in the secrets of Nature was Diabolical or unlawful; for the name of a Magician was honourable and laudable, until Knaves and Impostors made use of it to cheat and couzen withal, and for wicked and ungodly ends; but because they had made use of it for the glory of God, and the good of mankind, therefore were they Magicians in the genuine, and best sense, as working by lawful and natural means, and to a good end: when the Magicians of _Pharaoh_ may be called Cacomagicians, because they used the good and excellent causes and agents of nature to a wicked and Diabolical end, namely to resist the truth: and so the only difference of Magick is from the end and uses, and not from the causes or agents, that are both natural. So what these Magicians of _Pharaoh_ did, though it were strange and wonderful, yet was it meerly by natural means and causes; and yet being for a wicked end was therefore Diabolical. So _Jacob_ when he _set the pilled rods with white streakes in them, before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs, that when the Rams and the Sheep came up to drink, and coupled together, they might conceive and bring forth ring-streaked, speckled and spotted young ones; It came so to pass_, and is confessed by _Pererius_ himself, and the most of learned Expositors upon that place, to be from natural causes, and was a strange feat of natural Magick; but not evil because not directed to a wicked end: but that of _Pharaohs_ though wrought likewise by a natural causes (for so it was whether ascribed to the Devil, that can but work by natural means, or not) was wicked and Diabolical; because they did it to resist _Moses_ and _Aaron_ the messengers of the Lord Jehovah.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 3._]

3. The most or all the learned Expositors that have Commented upon this place of _Exodus_ (as may be seen in Dr. _Willets Hexapla_ and divers other learned Authors) though they attribute these things done by the Magicians to the power and assistance of Satan, yet in the manner they do acknowledge them not to be done really and in truth, but only in shew and appearance. But what they mean by shew and appearance is not so easie to find out and determine; for if by it they mean, that they did it as Juglers and those that use the Art of Leger-de-main do, that is, by shewing one thing, and then by nimble sleight and agility convey it away, and suddainly and unperceiveably substitute another thing in its place, which they perform by leading the Eyes and attentions of the spectators another way with staring and using of strange and insignificant words, then we should be soon accorded, for so they might probably and easily have been performed as we shall prove anon, but this is not the thing they mean or intend. But some do mean that the Devil did only deceive the Phantasie and imagination of the beholders, in causing them to imagine and believe that the rods were changed into Serpents, when they were not changed at all, but only their imaginations deceived in thinking them to be Serpents when they were but only rods, as melancholy persons, Men in Feavers, Phrensies and Maniacal distempers do often think and affirm that they see strange things when they see no such things externally, but the Phantasie is only deceived with the species and images of those things within. This might be granted if _Pharaoh_ and all the Spectators could be proved to be Men under those forenamed distempers and the like, though yet that might (and doth often) come to pass from meer natural causes, where the Devil hath nothing to do at all. But the beholders of these actions of the Magicians are neither proved, nor can rationally be supposed to be Men under any such distempers; but must be understood to be Men of several constitutions, tempers, and of sound health, and therefore not any way capable of any such illusions, neither could the Devil in a moment have so vitiated their imaginations, which we affirm he can no ways do, except the humours, fumes and spirits in the Body be first altered by natural causes, which cannot be done instantaneously, and if it could, then it would follow that no Man could certainly tell, when he were deceived in his imagination, when not: neither could it be, (as some imagine,) by casting a mist before their Eyes; for though Christ did hold the two Disciples Eyes going from _Emaus_, that they did not know him, it were blasphemous to think that Satan could do so also. And a mist casting before their Eyes might make them to see more dimly and confusedly, and cause things to appear greater than they were, but not to make one thing seem a quite contrary. But it never was yet proved that Satan could do such a thing, and what was never proved, may safely and rationally be denied. Some do suppose that the Devil did cloath or cover the Magicians rods with some such vestment of an airy substance, as might make the rods appear to the eye like Serpents; but this is as groundless a whimsey as any of the rest, and as it hath no proof, so it needs no confutation.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 4._]

[Sidenote: _Hist. 1._]