Chapter XII: Part 12

5. But to come more near the stress of the business, though Mr. _Glanvil_ confidently say, that Mr. _Scots_ Tenent, that the Woman was in one room and _Saul_ in another, when the feat was acted, is but a pretty knack and contrivance, and but an invention without ground, and not as much as intimated in the History: Yet we must soberly averr, that nothing is more plain in the Text, than either that they were in diverse rooms, or that _Saul_ saw nothing at all, but what he had was from her relation, or the acting of a confederate, and this we shall prove by these undeniable reasons. 1. After _Saul_ had pacified the pretended fears of the Woman, who falsly counterfeited that she knew not _Saul, who was taller by the head and shoulders than any man in Israel_, the next thing we hear of in the Text is, _and when the Woman saw Samuel_: Now if they were both in the same room, and _Samuel_ a visible object, how comes it to pass that _Saul_ saw him not? for if they were both in one room, and _Samuel_ visible, how is it that he did not or could not see him? were his corporal eyes as blind, as the eyes of his understanding? surely not. What fiction or invention must salve this? surely Mr. _Glanvil_ must pump to find it out. 2. The next thing is, that when the Woman saw (for blind _Saul_ saw nothing) _Samuel, she cried with a loud voice, magna voce_, or (as the Hebrew hath it) _in magna voce_. And (I pray you) if they had been both in one room, or near together, what need she to have cried with a great voice, might not an ordinary tone have made him to have heard her? What was he deaf as well as blind? Or it might be it was the more to amuse and amaze the wretched and deluded King, or to shew the wonderfulness of the apparition she feigned that astonishment, the more to magnifie her skill and cunning. Well, admit these were so, yet however it is manifest, notwithstanding her great voice, that as yet _Saul_ saw nothing, but stood waiting like a drown’d Puppet to hear what would be the issue, for all he understood was from her cunning and lying relation. And so either thus far it is manifest that they were in distinct rooms, or there was nothing that he could see. 3. The next thing is, he saith, _be not afraid, what sawest thou?_ that is, though I be _Saul_, yet be not afraid, I have sworn, and thou shalt receive no harm, but _what sawest thou?_ As who should say, I see nothing as yet at all, but I suppose thou hast seen something; for otherwise his question doth not agree with the words the Woman spake before. But however it is manifest that as yet he saw nothing, and therefore rationally it must be supposed that they were in distinct rooms, or that there was nothing visible, that he could see. Further, his question is not in the present tense but of the time past, _what sawest thou?_ or what hast thou seen? which could not be congruously spoken, if they had been both in one room, but however do undeniably conclude that as yet he saw nothing at all. 4. The next is the Womans lying and forged answer, thereby to magnifie her own craft, and the more to amuse and astonish poor deluded _Saul_, saying; _Behold I saw gods ascending out of the earth._ Well, it is still apparent that as _Saul_ could not before see _Samuel_, now he neither seeth these Gods she telleth him of, nor any such thing: So that all that he apprehended was from her forged Stories, for he saw nothing as yet, either because he was not in the same room with her, or that there was no visible apparition. 5. Then he maketh another absurd question, like a distracted Man in the house of _Bethlem_, saying, _what form is he of?_ when his question should have been, what forms are they of? for she spoke of Gods which are plural, and more than one, but he asketh in the singular, _what form is he of_. By all which it is manifest, that he yet saw nothing at all. For when we plainly see a thing, we do not usually ask others what form it is of, because our eyes can inform us of that. So that he saw nothing, either because he was not in the same room, or that there appeared nothing that was visible. 6. Now after all these ambiguous lies, and delatory cheats, the crafty quean doth begin to come more near, to give satisfaction to the blinded expectation of _Saul_, who all this while stood gaping to see the appearance of _Samuel_, and so she tells him (who was fit to believe any thing, though never so absurd, or impossible) _behold an old man comes up, and he is covered with a mantle_. In the beginning of the action, the Text saith, _and when the woman saw Samuel, she cried out_, then she said, _she saw gods ascending out of the earth_, and now after all this discourse and expence of time _Samuel_ is but coming up, all was lies and delayes the more to blind and delude the poor credulous King. But yet thus far it is plain that _Saul_ saw nothing at all, and so must needs all this while, either be in another room, or else for certain there was no apparition visible, and all the satisfaction that he had, was from the lying stories the Woman told him. Now let Mr. _Glanvil_ consider and answer, whether it be not only intimated, but clearly holden forth in the Text that either they were in two distinct rooms, or that nothing visible did appear before _Saul_. 7. Now after all this the Text saith, _and Saul perceived that it was Samuel_, the Hebrew word doth signifie to know or to perceive, and relates to the understanding: but how did he know, or perceive that it was _Samuel_? not by the sight of his eyes, for we have made it plain that he was either in another room, or that no visible apparition presented it self before his eyes, but he only perceived it by the description of the crafty Woman, who knew well enough what habit or garments _Samuel_ wore in his life time, as one that was the most publickly known Man in _Israel_: and therefore the subtil and crafty quean, knowing that _Saul_ only required _Samuel_ to be brought up and no other, doth at the last frame her tale agreeable to _Sauls_ desire, and so describes him an old Man, covered with a mantle, and such an one _Saul_ had known him to be, while he was living. But if _Saul_ had seen any such thing as the shape or form of _Samuel_, then the Hebrew Verb thrice used in that action, that properly signifieth to see with the eyes, would have been used in this place (as well as when it relateth what she saw) and not the verb for knowing or perceiving that relateth to the mind, and _Samuel_ he saw not, but only believed the lies she told him. For otherwise it would have been, And _Saul_ saw _Samuel_, and not, _Saul_ perceived that it was _Samuel_, which he could not do but only by her relation, and forged tales. 8. The last thing in this action, is, that _Saul stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself_: now to what did he stoop and bow, seeing he had seen nothing with his own eyes, neither knew any thing that appeared, but as the Woman told him? Could it be to any thing but to an imaginary _Samuel_ and such an one as she had described, whom he conceited in his Phantasie to be _Samuel_ himself? Surely in rational consequence it could be nothing else. For all that she had done and said before, being undeniably lies and cheats, this also in just and right reason, must be judged to be so also. So that it was either the Woman, that being in another room, did change and alter her voice, and so plaid the part of _Samuel_, or else that she had a confederate knave, whom she turned out to act the part of dead _Samuel_.

6. The last thing that we shall handle concerning this controverted subject, is the examination of the grounds and reasons of those that are of a different judgment, which may be comprised in these three several heads. 1. Some do conceive that it was the Body of _Samuel_ that was raised up, and acted by his soul or by Satan. 2. Some hold that it was _Samuels_ Soul that appeared in the shape and habit, that he had living. 3. Others do positively affirm that it was the Devil that assumed the shape of _Samuel_, and so acted the whole business, by a compact betwixt him and the Woman. These we shall confute in order.

[Sidenote: Philipp. 3. 21.]

[Sidenote: Matth. 27. 52, 53.]

[Sidenote: _Caten. Aur. Tho. Aquin. in_ Matth. 27.]

[Sidenote: Revel. 14. 13.]

1. That it was not the Body of _Samuel_ that was raised up, nor the Soul joyned with it, that acted _Samuels_ part, is manifest from these reasons. 1. Because _Samuels_ Body had lain too long in the grave, for some account it near two years, and therefore must needs in a great part be corrupted, wasted and disfigured, that none could have certainly known that it was _Samuel_. 2. It must have been so putrified and stinking, that none could have endured near it, for the noisome and horrible smell. 3. Who should have covered it with the mantle, which had it been buried with him, must in so long a time, have been rotten and consumed? Surely there were no Taylors in the Grave, to make him a new one, but (in reason and likelihood) if it had been his Body, it should have appeared in Linnen, or a winding-sheet, if that had not been rotten likewise. 4. To raise a Body, so long dead, must needs have required an omnipotent power, for it is the Almighty power of Christ alone, that raiseth up the vile Bodies of his Saints, and maketh them like his glorious Body. And therefore neither the woman with all her Divinations, nor all the Devils in Hell, nor any created power, but the Lord Almighty, could have wrought this miracle, who would never have done it, to gratifie the humour, or to magnifie the cheating craft of an idolatrous, wicked and couzening Witch. And if the Devil or any created power could raise up the Body of a departed Saint, then the rising out of the Graves of many Bodies of Saints, that had slept, and their coming into the holy City, and appearing unto many, after Christ was risen from the dead, had been no certain, or convincing argument, of the undoubted truth of the Divinity and Resurrection of our most Blessed Saviour. But they were most infallible evidences of them both, as saith the Father S. _Hierome_ in these words, _Sic multa corpora sanctorum resurrexerunt, ut dominum ostenderent resurgentem, & tamen cum monumenta aperta sunt, non ante resurrexerunt quàm resurgeret dominus, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis à mortuis_. 5. That it was not _Samuels_ Soul joyned with the Body, that acted this, we thus argue: That Tenent that is flatly contrary to the plain Doctrine of the Scripture, must needs be false. But this tenent of _Samuels_ Soul acting in the Body after death, is flatly contrary to the plain Doctrine of the Scripture, _ergo_ it is false. The major (we suppose) no Orthodox Christian can justly deny; and the minor is proved thus. The Scripture doth assure us, that _those that die in the Lord_ (as without all doubt _Samuel_ did) _are blessed, and rest from their labours_. Therefore must this Tenent be abominably false: for if the Soul of _Samuel_, after his death had been brought again to act in the Body, then he had not rested from his labours, but had been disquieted, and brought to new trouble, to have been vexed to have seen _Saul_ committing more wickedness than before, in taking counsel from a cursed Idolatrous Woman, such as the Lord had commanded to be destroyed. And there is no one point in all this transaction of _Saul_ with the Witch, that speaketh her Imposture more apparently than where this counterfeit _Samuel_ saith, _Why hast thou disquieted me?_ As though the Saints of God after death could be disquieted by a Devil, or a Witch, who (according to Gods infallible truth) are blessed, and rest from their labours, and are in the hands of the Lord, where no Torments can touch them. And therefore none would have spoken those lying words, but a devilish cheating quean, or a damnable suborned confederate.

6. If _Samuels_ Soul was again joined to his body so long after separation, and so performed vital actions, who was the author of this conjunction or union? could the Witch or the Devil or any created power effect that union? Surely not, none but the almighty power of Jehovah, who breathed into _Adam_ the breath of life. And therefore we are bold to assert (with all the company of learned Christians) that this opinion is erroneous, impious and blasphemous.

[Sidenote: 1 Sam. 15. 33.]

[Sidenote: Verse 29.]

2. The second opinion, that it was _Samuels_ Soul that appeared in his wonted shape and habit, that he wore while he lived, hath been strenuously maintained by the Popish party, and as strongly confuted by the reformed Divines. But we shall not trouble our selves and our readers with them all, but only urge two or three that are most cogent, thereby to answer Mr. _Glanvils_ fopperies, and they are these. 1. If it were _Samuels_ Soul that appeared, it cannot be supposed to come contrary, or whether God would or not, for hardly any rational Man (we believe) will affirm that, because God doth whatsoever he will, both in Heaven and Earth, and who hath resisted his will? 2. And it cannot be rationally thought that _Samuel_, who whilst he lived, was so punctually careful to do nothing (especially in his prophetick office) but what he was commanded of God, would after his death run an errand without his consent or licence. 3. And that his Soul did not come by the command of God is most certain: Though Mr. _Glanvil_ ask the question, who saith that happy departed Souls were never imployed in any ministeries here below? To which (though we have answered it before) we now again reply, that all learned Divines of the reformed Churches have said, and maintained it, and so do we both say and affirm, that they never were nor are imployed in ministeries here below, because never created, nor ordained of God, for any such end or purpose, but there are legions of Angels, that are ordained to be ministring Spirits, and not the Souls of the Saints departed this life. But Mr. _Glanvil_ goeth further, and saith, that _Samuel_ was not raised by the power of the Witches inchantments, but came on that occasion on a Divine errand. And though we have before unanswerably proved in the general, that no Souls of those that are dead do after death appear, or wander here below, nor come such sleveless errands, as he supposeth: yet we shall add one or two here in particular, to prove that _Samuels_ Soul came not on a Divine errand as sent by God, without which mission it could not have come at all. 4. For fourthly, if Mr. _Glanvil_ had proved by any argument, or colour of reason, that his Soul had come upon such a Divine errand it had been something, but he hath only laid down an affirmation, without either proof, reason or authority, and we may with as good reason deny it, as he affirm it, for bare affirmations prove nothing at all. 5. It is manifest that God in all his ordinances of providence, especially in the order of his miracles, doth work chiefly to confirm and witness truth, for that (as the worthy and learned _Stillingfleet_ hath observed) is the most proper _criterium_ of a miracle; and to send a Soul from the dead must needs be miraculous. Now if the chief end in Gods working of miracles (for none else but he can work them) be to establish truth, and settle his own Divine and pure worship, then it cannot be to uphold lies and Idolatrous courses. But if God should have sent _Samuels_ Soul on a Divine errand, when the Witch was practising her Diabolical Divinations and cheating tricks, it had been to have countenanced and confirmed both _Saul_, and the Witch, in their wicked wayes, and to have contradicted his own law and command, which did positively order, that all that used Divinations should be put to death, and all those that sought for counsel from them to be severely punished. Now let Mr. _Glanvil_, or any other prove, that God orders that to be done by the dead, which he forbad to be done by the living. 6. If it had been the true _Samuel_ that appeared, it is not rational, nor credible to imagine, that he would neither rebuke _Saul_ for consulting with a Woman that practised those things, that were forbidden by the law upon pain of death; nor that he would either reprove, or punish so wicked a Woman, finding her in the very act. We say it is not credible, unless we suppose _Samuel_ less zealous for the law and commands of God, being dead, than he was for them being living. Surely he that living _hewed Agag in pieces_, only because God had commanded he should be slain, would (if it had been the true _Samuel_, which without all question it was not) have done as much or worse, to the cursed and Idolatrous cheating Witch, though after his death, if he had come upon a Divine errand. 7. God should have shewed himself very mutable, if he had answered _Saul_ in a miraculous way by a dead Prophet, that had refused to answer him by one living. And _Samuel_ while living knew certainly that the Lord had rejected _Saul_ from being King over _Israel_, and had testified unto him, that _the strength of Israel would not lie, and that he was not like a man that he should repent_. But if it had been the true _Samuel_ that had been sent to speak to _Saul_, he knowing both by his own knowledge and relation of _Saul_ himself, that God had refused to answer him by Prophets, must in that conference both have made God a liar, and mutable, and also himself, who living had testified the contrary, and therefore it could not be either the true _Samuel_ nor his Soul. 8. It is manifest that the Lord had before withdrawn his good Spirit from _Saul_, and an evil one from the Lord was come upon him, and therefore it was no way probable, that the Lord would in a miraculous manner answer such a wicked person, whom he had utterly rejected as a reprobate. Neither is it like that God would shew him an extraordinary favour by a dead Prophet, that would not vouchsafe him his Spirit in an ordinary way. And _Samuel_ that came not at him for a long time (though but a little distance asunder) while he lived, was not like to make so long a journey in a Divine errand to visit him after his death. 9. And if _Abraham_ at the request of the rich Man _would not send Lazarus to warn his brethren, lest they should come into that place of torment_, which bore with it a fair shew both of Charity and Piety; much less would God give way (or _Samuel_ be desirous to come) to send a blessed Soul from its rest for such a frivolous matter, and in no wise to connive at the wickedness of both _Saul_ and the Witch, and never move either of them to the amendment of their lives. 10. Where doth Mr. _Glanvil_ find it mentioned in any part of Scripture? or where is it recorded in the writings of any reformed or Orthodoxal Divines? or where in any of their works is it declared, that ever any blessed Soul after death, was either sent, or did come upon a Divine errand to any here below? Is it not monstrous confidence (not to say impudence) to utter such groundless assertions, without any proof, reason, or authority at all? Let all learned and judicious persons consider and judge.

3. That the Devil assumed the shape of _Samuel_, and acted the whole business, is the opinion of all, or the most of the learned Divines of the reformed Churches, of whom we shall crave pardon, if we dissent from them, it being no fundamental of Religion, nor any Article of the Faith. And this we profess is not done out of the spirit of contradiction, nor for singularity, but only because (as we conceive) the Tenent hath no sufficient grounds neither from Scripture nor sound reason, to support it, and therefore we shall labour its confutation, by these ensuing arguments.

1. Because this opinion, that the Devil should perform this apparition, doth beg two suppositions, never yet sufficiently proved, and that have in them no certain truth. For first they take for an Hypothesis, that Devils are meerly and simply incorporeal Spirits, which we shall prove hereafter to be false. Secondly they take for another Hypothesis, that Spirits and Devils can assume what bodies they please, and appear in any figure or shape, which is a meer figment invented by the doating Schoolmen, as we shall sufficiently make good hereafter.

2. We are not of their opinion, that think, that the Devils do move, and rove up and down in this elementary world at their pleasure, to act what they list, and appear when, how and in what shapes they please, for then the World would be full of nothing almost but apparitions, and every corner replenished with their ludicrous tricks, as formerly in the times of blind Popery and ignorance, there was no discourse almost, but of Fairies, Hobgoblins, apparitions, Spirits, Devils and Souls, ranting in every house, and playing feats in every Town and Village, when it was nothing but the superstitious credulity, and ignorant fancies of the people, joined with the Impostures of the Priests and Monks. And if this were true, then how should Men know a true natural substance or body, from these fictitious apparitions? Nay how could a Man have known his Father or Mother, his Brethren or Sisters, his Kinsmen or Neighbours? might they not as well have believed them to be Phantasms, and assumed bodies, as real and true creatures?

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 22.]

[Sidenote: Isa. 37.]

3. But though faln Angels in respect of their malice, wicked wills, and envious desires whereby they seek (as much as in them lies) the ruine of all mankind both in Soul and Body, may in that particular end and regard, be said to be like roaring Lions going about and seeking whom they may devour, and compassing the earth and walking to and fro in it: yet we must affirm that in respect of executing their wicked, envious and malicious wills and desires, they are restrained, nay kept in the chains of everlasting darkness, from which fetters and chains they go not out, but when and so far as they are sent, ordered, licensed (or as some would have it worded) permitted, by the purpose and decree of the Divine and Almighties providence. So that it is most certain, that the faln Spirits cannot go forth of their chains, when they list, to act what mischief they would, contrary to the will of the Almighty, who hath fettered, and still keeps them in those chains: but when they are at any time let loose, it is only by the will, decree, licence and order of Jehovah, who sends them forth to accomplish his will, either for punishment to the wicked to inflict upon them his just judgments, for which they are the appointed ministers and executioners, and in the performance of these offices of his wrath, they are limited and bounded how far they shall proceed, and no further; or else they are sent forth to tempt, or afflict the godly for the trial of their faith, and herein they are so restrained and bounded by the power of the Almighty as they cannot act one jot beyond the limit of his commands or Commissions, as is manifest in the case of _David_, who was tempted by Satan to number the people, and in the affliction of _Job_, wherein he was bounded how far he should act, and no further. And when the evil Angels are thus sent forth, and limited by God, what, and how far they shall act, it is always for just and righteous ends, as in the case of _Ahab_, when a lying Spirit was sent by God into the mouths of his Prophets, that he might be persuaded to go up to _Ramath Gilead_ that he might be slain there, or as it was for a judgment and destruction upon _Sennacheribs_ Army, that _Jerusalem_ might be saved and freed, and he sent back with shame and confusion into his own countrey, or it is to manifest his glory, goodness and mercy to his Saints, so _David_ was moved to number the people, that falling under that temptation, and he and the people therefore plagued, might be brought to a greater degree of repentance, and to know that their defence stood not in the multitude of men, but in the benignity of Jehovah, who was their strength and their defender, and so _Job_ was so sore afflicted, that his Faith and Patience might be made manifest, and remain for an example to all succeeding posterities. But it is utterly irrational and incredible that God would send the Devil (without whose mission he could not have done it) to appear in the shape of _Samuel_, either to magnifie the skil, or practice of a lewd, wicked, and Idolatrous Woman, which thing he had forbidden by his plain and open law, nor to gratifie the curiosity of a wretched Reprobate, such as was _Saul_, whom he had denied to answer by living Prophets, and therefore would not answer him by the apparition of a Devil, to have committed a counterfeit Imposture, in the shape of holy _Samuel_. And therefore we conclude, that it was no apparition of the Devil, but meerly the Imposture of the Woman, either alone, or with a Confederate.

There is also a fourth opinion concerning the transaction of this Woman of _Endor_, that holds, that it was neither the Body, or Soul of _Samuel_ that was raised up, neither the Devil that appeared in his shape, nor that it was the Imposture of the Witch alone, or with a Confederate, but that it was the Sydereal, or Astral Spirit (as they are pleased to term it) of _Samuel_ that was made to appear, and speak by the art and skill of the Woman. But because this Tenent is not of much Antiquity, nor hath many assertors of it, as also because it taketh that for an Hypothesis, to wit, that there are three parts in Man, the Body, Soul, and Spirit; and that the Soul goeth immediately after death either to Heaven or Hell, the Body to the grave, and that the Spirit doth for a certain time after death wander in the air, and may be (by a certain kind of art) brought to appear visibly, and to give answers of all things that it knew living, which as yet hath never been sufficiently proved, therefore we shall pass it over here, having (perhaps) occasion to speak of it more largely hereafter.

We shall now come to mention some places in the New Testament that are produced by some, thereby to prove the great power of Devils and Witches in transferring and carrying bodies in the air, as is that of our Saviours temptation, where it is said that the Devil took him into an exceeding high Mountain, and that he set him upon the pinnacle of the Temple in _Jerusalem_, from whence they thus argue: That if the Devil had power to carry our most blessed Saviour in the air into an high mountain, and to set him upon the pinnacle of the Temple, that much more hath he power to carry the bodies of Witches who are his sworn vassals in the air, whither he pleaseth, or they desire. To annul the force of which objection we give these reasons.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 1._]

[Sidenote: Matth. 3. 16.]

[Sidenote: Luke 3. 22.]

[Sidenote: Judg. 15. 15.]

1. If it were granted that the Devil did transport our Saviour in the air, yet it will not follow that he can at any time when he pleaseth carry the Bodies of Men or Women so likewise, for no particular proposition will, according to the rules of art, infer a general or universal conclusion, nor one example or instance inductively prove a general practice; one Swallow doth not make a Summer. For though once when our blessed Saviour was baptized, the Holy Ghost did descend like a Dove, and light upon him, it will not follow, that in all other of his actions of preaching, or working of miracles, the holy Spirit should appear also in the form of a Dove, nor when other Saints are Baptized will it follow that it doth, or should alwaies appear in the same form. And though _Samson_ did once slay a thousand of the _Philistines_ with the jawbone of an Ass, it doth not follow, that either he did so in like manner in every battel, or that every Man may do the like.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]

2. If it were granted that the Devil did carry Christs Body in the air, it will not follow that he can do so at any other times, when he pleaseth, because in the temptation of Christ there was an extraordinary dispensation of God for the same, which cannot be presupposed in the ordinary transportation of Witches, and therefore the argument falls quite to the ground.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]

3. In the actions of Satan (especially in elementary things, for we speak not of the acts of his will) the will, order and licence of God is chiefly to be considered, because his power (in respect of execution) is under the power of the Almighty, so that he can do nothing in this respect but what he is ordered and commanded to do. And therefore the end of the action is principally to be regarded; for if God should have given way that Christ should be carried by Satan in the air, it was for a glorious and good end, that the obedience of his will to the Father might be shown, and that his victory over the Devil might be made manifest: but in carrying the Bodies of Witches in the air, there can be no good, just or pious end wherefore the Devil should be licensed, or permitted to carry them in the air, except it were to promote filthiness and abominable wickedness, which were absurd and blasphemous to imagine. And therefore we may rationally and plainly conclude, that the carrying of the Bodies of Witches in the air, by the power of the Devil, is a false, wicked and impious opinion.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 4._]

[Sidenote: Ezek. 8. 3.]

[Sidenote: _Beza in Luc._ 4. 5.]

[Sidenote: Matth. 4. 1.]

[Sidenote: Mark 1. 12.]

[Sidenote: Luke 4. 1.]

[Sidenote: _Caten. Aur. Tho. Aquin. in_ Luke 4.]

4. Some are of opinion that this whole transaction was visible, sensible and corporeal, as _Theophylact_, and many others. Some are of opinion that it was wholly in a Vision. And some take a middle way that it was partly sensible and visible, and partly mental, and by way of vision. Of which opinion the great _Cameron_ seems to be, who compares it with that of _Ezekiel_ who saith: _And the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem_: And sheweth that the word Ἀνήχθη doth agree with the Hebrew word נשא, which is as applicable to lifting up or carrying in a vision, as to bodily transportation. And that it was either altogether, or partly in a vision, the learned _Beza_ gives us this note: _Hoc videtur satis ostendere hæc omnia per visionem quandam, non corporali transvectione & ostensione esse gesta, quomodo nempe humanitus videre potuisset omnia regna orbis, & gloriam eorum in momento?_ But though it be the more sound and rational opinion that the whole transaction was mental, and in a vision, yet we shall not altogether stand upon that, but if it be granted that it was corporeal and visible, yet it doth not appear that our Saviour was in his Body carried by the power of the Devil in the air, either to the top of an high mountain, nor set upon the pinnacle of the Temple in _Jerusalem_, and that for these reasons. 1. Our Saviour did not go to undertake this combat with Satan unwillingly, that he need be constrained, or carried to try the utmost power and malice of the Devil, but readily and willingly by the conduct and leading of the holy Spirit, for the Text saith in _Matthew_; _Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the Devil_: And S. _Mark_ saith; _And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness_. And S. _Luke_ saith: _He was led by the spirit into the wilderness_. _Beza_ saith, _subductus fuit in desertum_, and _Tremellius_ saith, _ductus fuit_, upon the place in S. _Matthews_ Gospel. And in S. _Luke_ _Tremellius_ saith; _Et duxit eum spiritus in desertum_, and _Beza_, _actus est ab eodem spiritu in desertum_. And in S. _Mark_ _Tremellius_ saith, _deduxit eum spiritus in desertum_, and _Beza_ rendreth it, _expellit eum spiritus in desertum_. And because of the Greek word which is there ἐκβάλλει, he addeth this note, _Non significatur expulsio violenta, sed vis divina, quæ Christum, (qui ad illud usq; tempus ut privatus vixerat) nova persona induit, ac luctæ proximæ & ministerio præparatur_. Therefore saith _Origen_: _Sequebatur planè quasi athleta ad tentationem sponte proficiscens, & quodammodo loquebatur: Duc quo vis, & invenies me in omnibus fortiorem_. So that it is most plain that he was no otherwise led or carried by Satan, but as he was led by the Holy Ghost, so that he went whithersoever Satan would desire him of his own mind and accord, and needed not to be carried by the Devil, for S. _Luke_ useth the same Greek word both for the Holy Spirit leading of him, and Satans leading of him, so that Satan did not carry his body in the air, as Men vainly conceive. 2. Though S. _Matthew_ use the word παραλαμβάνει, which may signifie _assumpsit_, he took him, and set him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and took him into an high mountain; yet it cannot be understood thereby that he took him, and carried his Body, but that he went before, and led Christ to those places, that he thought most fit for him to prevail in his temptations, to which places Christ went not by an unwilling constraint or hurried and carried in the air, but by a ready willingness, as one that certainly knew, and was assured, that he should win the Victory where ever, or how great soever the combat and temptations were. And therefore S. _Luke_ useth the same word from ἄγω, _duco_, both for the Spirits, and Satans leading, as signifying no more, but to go before, and lead the way, or to draw one to such or such a place by persuasion and desire, and not to be carried in the air, which appeareth to be a vain and forged interpretation, and not the true meaning of the places.

[Sidenote: Acts 8. 9.]

Concerning _Simon Magus_ we have before in this Treatise sufficiently proved that he was only a deceiver and Impostor, and what strange feats he had done to astonish, and stupifie the _Samaritanes_, were only jugling knacks, or deceits by confederacy, and no supernatural things, so that here we will say no more, but only add: That though our English translation say that he bewitched the people of _Samaria_ with sorceries, and that he himself, when he beheld the miracles and signs that were done, wondered; yet the word that they translate in the one place bewitching, and in the other wondered, are both from one _Thema_ which is Ἠξίστημι, _de statu mentis dejicio, facio ut aliquis mente non constet, perterrefacio, obstupefacio_. And therefore either it ought to be that the _Samaritanes_ were astonisht at the feats that _Simon_ wrought, and that he himself was astonisht at the miracles of _Philip_, or that they were both bewitched, for they were both under the same amazement, and there is no reason at all to give it one sense in one place, and a different one in the other.

[Sidenote: Acts 13. 10.]

[Sidenote: Acts 19. 13, 16.]

We need not here say any thing of _Elymas_ who is stiled a Magician, because it is manifest that he was a false Prophet, full of all subtilty, and all mischief, a Child of the Devil, and an enemy of all righteousness: which character truly given to him by the unerring sentence of S. _Paul_, may be really ascribed to the whole tribe and profession of such kind of seducers and deceivers. Like unto whom were those _seven Sons of Sceva a Jew_, who are called _exorcists_, that _took upon them to call over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth_, but were soundly beaten for their pains, a fit reward for such vagabonds; And if all that profess or practise such wicked, vain and lying things were duely punished, the poor ignorant people would not be so much abused as they are.

The other places in the New Testament we have handled, and answered, and also have touched upon that Text in the _Galathians_ where we spoke of Fascination, but lest it be not sufficient, we shall handle it fully here. The words are, _O foolish Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?_ From whence they use thus to argue: If Witchcraft in the Apostles time had not been known, and practised, he would not have made use of that Phrase then; concerning which we return these responsions.

[Sidenote: _Delrio._ _l._ 3. _q._ 4. _sect._ 1. _Concl._ 2.]

1. If we consider natural Fascination was by the Philosophers and Poets only taken to be contagious steams flowing from the eyes, or breaths of malevolent and envious persons, that had some infectious diseases, as we see in the Plague, Small-pox, _Lues Venerea_, soreness of Eyes, Tinea’s, and the like, which are contagious to others that lie with them, or converse near them, the infected atomes or steams issuing in a certain Sphear of activity, are received by the pores, or mouths of the sound persons, by which they come to be infected also. And this the Poet witnessed: _Nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos_. Now this being the common opinion, the Apostle taketh the metaphor from thence, as who should say, who with their virulent and poysonous opinions have infected you, that you should not obey the truth. And this is the genuine meaning of that metaphorical phrase, and no other sense can rationally and congruously be put upon the place, and this conduceth nothing to that opinion of Witchcraft that we oppose. For _Philosophica seu Physica fascinatio non nisi impropriè dici potest fascinatio, propriè verò est contagio, seu infectio_. And therefore did the learned _Vallesius_ to the same purpose speak this. _Sed neq; si quis pestilenti affectus febri, aut etiam sine febre deferens secum seminaria pestis alium intuens intuentem inficiat, dicetur fascinasse, sed peste affecisse._

[Sidenote: _Vid. Jo. Lazar. Guttier. de fascino._]

2. Some of the fathers (which may be offered for an objection) do seem to hold that S. _Paul_ here meant of diabolical fascination, and so _Tertullian_ in English thus: For there is also something amongst the Gentiles to be feared, which they call fascination, being a more unfortunate event of praise, and great glory: this we sometimes interpret of the Devil. And S. _Hierome_ saith upon this place: Fascination is when some things by Magical illusions are shewed to the eyes of Men, otherwise than they are. Also Fascination is vulgarly called that, which doth hurt Children, for the eyes of certain persons are said to burn with looking, and this act of theirs is called Fascination, and it may be that the Devils are subservient to this Sin. And _Thomas Aquinas_ saith: And this also may be done by Devils, who have power of moving false imaginations, and bringing them to the principles of the Senses, by changing the Senses themselves. From whence we may note these things. 1. That _Tertullian_ saith that they sometimes interpret this of the Devil, but how truly or upon what grounds he sheweth not, and it seemeth that sometimes they did interpret it of something else, for so his words must needs imply. 2. Secondly, S. _Hierome_ sometime calleth fascination Magical illusions, and sometime that which doth hurt Children, by the burning of some eyes; and then comes in with a may be that the Devils are subservient to this sin. So that he is not certain in his opinion, nor truly knows what fascination is, but according to vulgar opinion, or blind conjectures. 3. And all that the Angelical Doctor saith, doth but amount to the delusion of the Senses, by false imaginations, so that here is no proof either of the Devil, or his instruments, to cause any real fascination.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Guttier. passim._]

[Sidenote: _Galen. de Incantat._]

3. Those that hold that _Paul_ did allude unto natural, or diabolick fascination, do but mean magical illusions, whereby the senses are abused and deceived, to take things to be that which really they are not, and so are but cheating Incantations and delusory Juglings, for as _Galen_ (if that piece be truly his) saith: _Incantationes verba sunt decipientia rationales animas secundum spei inceptionem, aut secundum timoris incisionem_. So that though S. _Paul_ had taken the metaphor from that which was commonly accounted fascination, there is no necessity, that therefore the metaphor must in all points be true: it is sufficient that the common opinion was so, from whose usage of such terms the Apostle useth the word, to fascinate, or inchant. And of this opinion was S. _Hierome_ himself who saith thus much: _Dignè Paulum, qui etsi imperitus est sermone non tamen & scientia, debemus exponere non quod scierit esse fascinum, qui vulgò putatur nocere, sed usus sermone sit trivii, & ut in cætero, ita & in hoc quoq; loco verbum quotidianæ sermocinationis assumpserit_. So that from hence it is most evident, that the using of the word fascination by the Apostle, doth not inferr the being of the thing, but only the opinion of the vulgar, that believed things that were not. And of the same judgment is _Thomas Aquinas_ in these words: _Propriè dicit Apostolus, quis vos fascinavit? quasi dicat, vos estis sicut homo ludificatus qui res manifestas aliter accipit quàm sint in rei veritate_. Therefore we shall conclude this point with the sentiment of S. _Hierome_: _Nunc illud in causa est, quod ex opinione vulgi sumptum putamus exemplum, ut quomodo tenera ætas noceri dicitur fascino, sic etiam Galatæ in Christi fide nuper nati, & nutriti lacte, & solido cibo velut quodam fascinante sunt nociti_.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Valles. de sacr. Philosoph._]

[Sidenote: _Galen_ _l._ 8. _de compos. medic._]

4. But howsoever fascination might be understood, yet it is plain, that except the _Effluvia_ or steams of Bodies that had contagious diseases, entring into other sound Bodies, and thereby infecting them with their noysome vapours, or Atomes, there is nothing, but what was vain belief and credulous superstition, as the learned _Vallesius_ tells us in these words, thus rendered in English: “But if this be the way or reason of fascination, any one may easily understand, that fascination is a certain superstitious fear, arising from foolish credulity, of which sort are many other things in the life of Man, as for argument, that this opinion is more approved of by Women than by Men, and far more of the unlearned than of the learned. Although (he saith) I also see that there are those amongst the learned that are rather lovers of subtilty than verity, who take care to defend those things that the vulgar do admire. By which they would be accounted judicious magical Juglers, and Men skilful of secrets.” And therefore he thus concludeth: “Therefore the name of fascination is ancient, and according to the ancient signification, it doth not signifie any natural disease, but a vain superstition, arising from vulgar opinion, and therefore neither _Hippocrates_, nor _Galen_, nor any of the ancient Physicians, that I know of do mention fascination, neither amongst the differences nor causes of Diseases. From whence again is taken no small argument of its vanity.” Therefore we shall conclude this point with that remarkable saying of _Galen_. “_Falsæ etenim opiniones animas hominum præoccupantes, non solum surdos, sed & cæcos faciunt, ita ut videre nequeant, quæ aliis conspicua apparent._”

5. The Angelical Doctor with the consent of the most part of all the learned do affirm that the Devil by his own power cannot change corporeal matter, unless he apply proportionate actives to fit passives, to produce those effects he intendeth; As for instance, he can cause burning, because there is a combustive agent in nature; but if that were awanting, or if there were no combustible matter, how should he cause any ignition? But if he be supposed to work diabolical fascination, for which there is no agent in nature, it being but an imaginary thing in the heads of the deluded vulgar; then it will necessarily follow, that he can work no fascination at all, and so the whole opinion of the Witchmongers falls to the ground. For it is manifest that there is contagion, by the infected _Effluvia_ or steams issuing from a diseased Body to another by which it may be contaminated, but otherwise there is no natural fascination, nor any agent in nature to produce that effect, and therefore there can be no Diabolical fascination at all.

CHAP. IX.

_Of Divine permission, providence and prescience._

There is no one thing that hath more promoted this false and wicked Tenent of a kind of omnipotency in Devils, and the exorbitant power ascribed to Witches, than the misunderstanding of the true and right Doctrine of Divine Providence, and the admitting of a bare permission in God as different and distinct from his providence. From whence it cometh to pass that not only the vulgar, but such as tread in the steps of _Arminius_, do hold a meer bare permission, and that God sits as a quiet beholder by his Prescience from the event of things to see what will be effected by Devils and wicked Men, who in the mean time run and rove about, acting what, when and how they please, and that God hath neither hook in their nostrils, nor bridle in their mouths, neither keeps them in any restraint, order or government, and so we must needs have a mad rule in this World, during this permission and naked inspection.

But that we may proceed in such order, as may be clear and intelligible to the Readers, we shall here propose the state of the matter that we undertake to confute, which is this: That there is not in God a nude, passive permission, separate from the positive and active decree, order and will of his Divine Providence and Government, but that he doth rule all things according to the power and determination of his own positive and actual will. And this we shall prosecute in this following order and particulars.

Those that deny that there is in God a passive permission separate from his decretive and actual will in his providence are accused by others, thereby to infer the absurdity, that God is the author or efficient cause of sin; which pretended absurdity, in truth and reason cannot be any, because it is a simple and absolute impossibility, that God should be the author of sin as these arguments do sufficiently testifie.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

[Sidenote: James 1. 13.]

[Sidenote: Psal. 5. 4.]

[Sidenote: Deut. 32. 3.]

1. That of necessity must be false, which the Scriptures do declare to be so, in open and plain terms. But that God should be the author of sin or evil, the Scriptures do deny in open and plain terms, as where the Text saith: _God cannot be tempted with evil_: where both the act, and the possibility of it is absolutely denied. Again: _For thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with thee_. Therefore it is false that God is, or can be the author of sin; and so by consequence the supposed absurdity is a meer impossibility; and an absurdity urged that is impossible, is most of all absurd.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

2. He is _ens summè perfectum, & quicquid est in Deo, est Deus_; but sin howsoever understood, or accepted, is an imperfection, defect and an aberration from a just and perfect rule, and therefore it is simply impossible that God can be the cause of any thing that is imperfect, sinful or evil, if sin be considered as _malum culpæ_.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 3._]

[Sidenote: Rom. 4. 15.]

3. God is not under any binding law given to him by some other, for then he should cease to be supream, independent and omnipotent: Now to whom there is no law given to observe, there can be no transgression, for the Apostle saith, _where there is no law, there is no transgression_; and therefore it is simply impossible that God should be the author, or causer of sin, or evil, because there is no law that he can transgress against.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 4._]

[Sidenote: _De Civitat. Dei_, _l._ 2. _c._ 7.]

4. God prohibiteth and hateth sin, as the Scriptures do every where testifie, but God is the cause of nothing but that which he loveth, and therefore cannot be the cause of the evil of sin. And to speak properly sin hath no efficient cause, but a deficient, such as is the will of faln Angels, and wicked Men, whose irregularity of will, from the command of God, is all the cause that sin and evil hath or can have. An efficient cause is only of those things that are good, because every efficient cause doth by working put something in being: But privations (of which sort are sins) do put nothing in being, but do truly note the absence of beings. Therefore did S. _Augustine_ say well: _Mali causa efficiens nulla est, sed tantùm deficiens_.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 5._]

[Sidenote: Gen. 1. 3.]

[Sidenote: John 8. 44.]

[Sidenote: 1 John 3. 8.]

5. That which properly hath an efficient cause, hath also an end properly so called: But sin hath not an end properly so called, because the end is being, and therefore good, and the perfection of the thing. But the Scripture doth declare that _all things that God created were exceeding good_; and that the cause of sin was Man, and the Devil; for the text saith, that _the Devil was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth_: And again, _He that committeth sin, is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning_. Therefore from hence it is clear, that God neither is nor can be the author or causer of sin.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 6._]

[Sidenote: _Vid. Schar. de miser. hom. stat. sub peccato_, _c._ 3.]

[Sidenote: _Fulgent._ _lib._ 1. _ad Monim_]

6. That which God is the author of, doth not make Man worse. but sin doth make Man worse, therefore God is not the author of it. And all sin is perpetrated, because thereby it receeded from the order that respecteth God, as the ultimate end of all things; but God doth incline all things unto himself, as to the ultimate end, neither doth he turn them from himself, because he is _summum bonum_. And further as _Fulgentius_ saith: _Deus non est ejus rei autor, cujus est ultor. At Deus est peccati ultor, ergo non autor._ And therefore we conclude, that this is a vain pretence of an absurdity, because it is impossible that God should be the author or causer of sin.

[Sidenote: Job 13. 7.]