A Survey of Dialogical Discourses, Survey 4
A Suruey of the Fourth Dialogue
In the fourth Dialogue you contend,pag. 101: That Diuels cannot aſſūe bodyes vntounto them. Where firſt it is to be obſerued that this diſputation ſpringes from the former, as the ſpecial from the generall. For bodily poſſeſſion, ſay you, is eyther by aſſuming of a bodie, or by tranſforming. Whereby it muſt needes be, that all aſſuming of bodies, is bodily poſſeſſion: but onelyonly good Angels (according to the diuinitie of this dialogue) aſſume true bodies, and therefore they onelyonly poſſeſſe: & ſo be the only tormenters of the poſſeſſed. Yet our Sauiour in freeing men from ſuch moleſtours, doth vſually tearme them vncleane ſpirits. Such is the dotage which vnawares you run into, whilſt with more confidence then with either wit or learning, you maintaine theſe abſurd poſitions. Againe, this diſtribution of bodily poſſeſſion, into aſſumption of bodies, or tranſformation, would tye all bodily poſſeſſion to one of theſe two, (for the generall muſt of force be comprehended in all the ſpecials) whereas corporall poſſeſſion requireth neither of both, the ſpirits in their owne ſubſtance, without taking any forraine body, entring into ſuch as be permitted ynto them. But ſo you be talkinge you care not greatly what you ſay, be it neuer ſo abſurd.
In Math. 4. ver: 3, 5, 8, Angelogra. page, 556,To proue the affirmatiue parte, I meane, That Diuels can putt vponupon them bodyes, that ſo they may viſibly appeare vntounto men, & familiarly converſe with them, I will not vſe many wordes, nor authorityes, ſith the matter is ſo euident by daylie experience.
Auguſt: ſuper Gen 11 Aquinas 2, 2 q. 165, art. 2 A…g. 4: Mercer. in Gene. 3, 1: Bvlling. Decad. 4: ſer. 11 Calvin in Gen: 3, Danei Iſag: part 2, cap: 34, Hunnius disput. 4 propo- 14, 15, Zanch. de operibus cre. part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Szeged, lo com, pag, 400 P: Martyr lo com. claſſ, 1, ſect. 15. et cap. 10, ſect, 25,Piſcator ſaith to this purpoſe thus. It muſt not ſeeme incredible, that the diuel hauing taken vponupon him the ſhape of man, ſhould come vntounto men & hauehave speach with them. For that we ſee he did when he tēpted Chriſt. Neither muſt this ſeeme leſſe credible of euill angels, then of good, by whom it is certaine this was often done: as the examples in Scripture doe teſtify. Otho Caſman a late approued writer (who is very often quoted by theſe men, they thereby pretending that he conſenteth with them, when he is as contrary to them, as light is to darknes) ſaith after this manner: It is ſo certaine that the diuels aſſume and moue diuers kindes of bodyes, diuerſly formed, that it cannot be denyed. I ommit heere to produce the teſtimonyes of other learned writers, as (¶) Auguſtine, Th… Aquinas, Mercer, Bullinger, Caluin, Danaeus, Hunnius, Zanchius, Szegedinus, with ſundry others. Only I will adde a few lynes out of Peter Martyr that great learned man, that it may the better appeare vntounto vsus, that this is both poſſible and eaſie, and that this ſaid aſſuming may the better be conceaued and vnderunder ſtood of the vnlearned. The diuels (ſaith he) can in very deede enter into a body made before, and formerly existing. (meaning into created or true naturall bodyes) Sometimes the diuell putteth on an aery body: but that he doth not forme or quicken as the ſoule doth our body: neither doth he make it to paſſe into one ſubſtance with himſelfe, as did the word of god with an humane bodie: for diuels can put of thoſe bodies, when they pleaſe. The diuel, as ſaith Augustine, fitteth vntounto himſelfe ſome body as it were a garment. Againe, Theſe bodyes which the spirits doe apply vntounto themſelues, be aery: ibidem ſect. 2…for euen as water is congealed into yce, and ſometime hardeneth til it become chriſtall, euen ſo the aer wherewith ſpirits doe cloath themſelues, is thickned, ſo that it becommeth a viſible body. But if it may ſeeme that the aer alone is not ſufficient, they can alſo mingle ſome vapor or water withall, whereof colours may be made, for this we ſee to be done in the raynebow. The ſpirits doe thicken & engroſſe theſe bodies, by ſtraight truſſing thoſe partes togither, for otherwiſe they might not be ſeene or touched. And yet we ſay not heere, ſect. 22…that the diuell doth either create or make ſuch things, but only that he is a miniſter ſeruing vntounto nature. Euen ſo the huſbandman, when he tilleth and ſoweth his ground, & the gardiner when he pruneth and delueth a vyne, doe not create the corne or wine, but only doe helpe nature. So Auguſtine ſaith, that Iacob did not bring forth the colour vponupon the ſheepe, but did only rightly apply the formes & ſhapes. But it ſeemeth wonderfull how they can ſo speedely bring theſe things to paſſe. A ſkilfull artificer will worke any thing both handſomly & speedely. But giuegive the ſame inſtruments vntounto an ignorant and vnſkilfullman, and he will doe it neither redelie, nor yet very handſomely. Euen ſo any ſpirit, as a ſkilfull artificer will bring more to paſſe in a mynute, then by the accuſtomed order of nature can be wrought in a long time. Thus far goeth Peter Martyr.
The generall conſent of writers as it ſhould ſeeme, did wring from you this modeſty,pag: 100. that you would vndertake no abſolute denyall hereof, but only make a queſtion of it. As if it were a ſmall matter to make Queſtion of thinges ſubſtantially true in themſelues, and vniuerſallye receaued. VVoulde you hauehave Chriſtians be…me Academicks? or hath not the world had inough of Peter Lumbards diuinity? It ſeemes you hauehave little regard of troublinge the Church. I wiſh they may hauehave more which hauehave the allowance of ſuch bookes to the preſſe, yet ſeing ſuch lauiſh Diſcourſes muſt cōe abroad, leaſt any ſhould be deceaued by your vaine gloſe, I wil proceede to examine your doing. The argument vponupon which you ground, is after this manner. If the Diuel aſſume to himſelfe a body, pag 100. 101 102, 103: & 104, 105.it is either a true body, or a phantaſticall body, one created ſome time before, or then newly, either the bodye of a liuinge man, or of a dead man: But none of all theſe, & therefore no body. I anſwer firſt, that he aſſumeth both a true body, and a phantaſticall body: ſometimes the one, and ſometimes the other. Secondly that he taketh a created body. If you demaund by whome? I anſwer by himſelf. You reply, that creation is proper to God alone: and I reioyne, that creation is twofould. One when a thing is made of nothing, as all thinges were in the firſt begininge, in which power no creature may challenge any part: the other when bodies are framed of ſome matter already being: In this kinde the Lord doth vſe the miniſtery of his Angels. If it ſeeme hard to giuegive the name of creation to this latter kinde: then I anſwer, that the body the diuel vſually aſſumeth, is an vncreated body. The matter of his body is from god & from his creation, it being made of aer thickned or of ſome ſuch like matter. But the (¶) forme & in that it is a body, hauing the bigneſſe, proportion, colour, voyce & motion of a body, is meerely from the diuel. Here by I ſay it is plaine, that it is an vncreated body*I doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bodie, as the soule doth our body: bvt that frō him it hath the forme, faſhion, and ſhape of a bodie. formed by the diuel, but not created by him. For then he ſhould make it of nothing. Neither is it created by god, the alone creator: becauſe it hath not the*I doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bodie, as the soule doth our body: bvt that frō him it hath the forme, faſhion, and ſhape of a bodie. forme, nor that it is a body from him. And yet notwithſtanding it is a thing exiſting in nature, before the diuel aſſume it, as eueryevery childe may perceaue. And that this ſpirits be able to performe we cannot but acknowledge, except we ſuppoſe them to be of weaker ſtrength then other creatures. Doth not the ſunne by his heate frame in the dunghill the body of a mouſe, and giuegive vntounto it alſo life and ſence? Philoſophie and experyence doth teach thus much. It were abſurde to imagine Angelicall natures to be of leſſe abillity then the ſunne, eſpecially in a matter of leſſe difficulty by ſomuch, as it is more eaſy to frame & aſſume a body one lye, then to quicken and endue it with ſencible forme. And why ſhould it not be as poſſible and eaſie for the diuel thus to compact and frame a body, for height, length, breadth, with all the partes & due proportions thereof of any kinde whatſoeuer, like to man, dog, catt, toade, &c. & enter into it, as to cauſe a tempeſt, & thoſe other accidents whereof we reade in the hiſtory of Iob? Thirdly I anſwer that in apparitions,Ioh. 1. which are not properly called poſſeſſiōs, he neither taketh a liuing mans body, nor a dead mans, but only ſuch a one as is made ſpecially for that purpoſe, which when the errand is done, is diſſolued into the ſame nature it was of before. And whereas you tell vsus concerning the dead mans bodie, that if the diuell ſhould aſſume the carkas of a man lately deceaſed, he ſhould appeare in a white winding ſheete: I ſee no reaſon of this windinge ſheete, except it be for you M. Deacon, to doe your penance in. But you adde, mens bodies were created for the Lord, & not for infernal ſpirits. True.page, 10… To this end mans body was not created. But heerevnto hath man made his body ſubiect by his owne tranſgreſſion. You ſay further. If the diuel can aſſume to him ſelf a dead body, then we muſt needes imagine a reſurrection of bodies before the generall iudgment, and that performed by the diuel, whereas that power is proper to god. This propoſition is falſe. In the reſurrection the ſoule and body ſhall be vnited togither, and by this coniunction the body againe quickned. Now this can only Iehouah doe. And after this manner many dead bodies aroſe and came out of the graues, & appeared to many at the reſurrection of Chriſt. But heere is no ſuch coniunction:Math. 27.5… neither doth the ſpirit aſſuming, quicken the body aſſumed. The diuel is too weake to performe either of thoſe. So that for any thing you ſay, he may take liuing or dead bodie, which he pleaſe. Thus we ſee there is no truth nor ſoundnes in this argument, but a meere trifling & abuſing of the Reader, as wel concluding that neither good angels can poſſibly take bodies vponupon them (contrary to the expreſſe truth in the ſcripture) as that the wicked cannot. VVhichWhich kīde of affirmations would rather be confuted by good ſound correction, then by diſputation of any man of learning, though as meane as my ſelfe: And this is all the wiſe proofe you bringe. The reſt of the dialogue is ſpent in refelling the reaſons for the contrary, which be cheifly fiue.
The firſt, Good Angels hauehave appeared in aſſumed bodies, and therefore wicked Angels may doe likewiſe.pag. 10: 5 Zanch. de operibus r…dē part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Piſcator in Math, 4.3.
This argument you would ſhift of by diuers fooliſh vntruths, firſt, for that it conſisteth not of things eſſentially alike in eueryevery respect. VVhy Sirs? HaueHave you found out a difference in the eſſence of good and wicked Angels? All ſound deuines hitherto hauehave made their difference only in their quality. But you are nothing dainty of ſuch nouelties. Wel to let this paſſe: How ſhew you there is a diuers reaſon of them in this poynt? In this ſort: The priuiledg of celeſtiall Angels, is not incident to the infernall. To graunt you this, what doe you build from hence? But to aſſume a body is the priuiledge of celeſtiall angels. This is a ſecond vntruth. You were aſhamed it may be, to expreſſe it plainly (I would be glad to heare you were growne ſo baſhfull) but it muſt neceſſarily be vnderſtood. If to aſſume bodies were the celeſtiall angels priuiledg, the Lord which is the maintainer of thir priuiledges, would neuer hauehave ſuffered Sathan to hauehave entred into the body of the ſerpent. You are to vnderſtand therefore, that this aſſuming is not done or permitted by god for the benefit of the ſpirits, but for the comfort or diſcomfort of man. You add. Neither yet are they equall with the celeſtiall Angels in knowledge and power. It is ynough if the euill angels hauehave knowledg and power to compact and frame a body of the ayre and ſuch like matter, & as a garment to put it on. And this knowledg and power they hauehave.
Fourthly, ſay you, the bodies wherein good Angels appeared, were not created by themſelues, pag, 106:but by god. I anſwer, if they were ſuch as were imediatly made of nothing, the Lord was the only workman of them: but if of ſome forebeeinge matter, their miniſtery might hauehave a place. But admit they were immediatly made, may not the Lord alſo create bodies for wicked ſpirits to vſe in their ſpeciall ſeruices? You imply he will not. It is preſumption to ſearch further īto God his will, then his word and actions doe warrant vsus: and it is blindneſſe not to acknowledg ſo much, as they leade vsus vntounto. Seeing then the Lord in iuſt iudgment permitteth Sathan to be a lying ſpirit in the mouthes of all Ahabs prophets,2 Theſſ, 2, 9. and to come in all deceiuablenes by Antichriſt to beguile the reprobate: is it any thing contrary to his holy iuſtice and will, to allow him ſuch meanes, whereby he may accompliſh the vengeance determined? Euen ſo in this caſe.
Fiftly you ſay, that howſoeuer good Angels hauehave appeared, ye… of euill Angels no example can be giuen.
The examples be more then the haires of your head. But you dare auouch any thing againſt the teſtimony of the whole worlde, chriſtian and heathen. To omit auncient examples (leaſt perhapps you ſay they be paſt date, the like being ceaſed in our times, as you doe ſay of poſſeſſion) the apparition neere Auguſta about the yeare 1503. vnderunder Maximilius the firſt Emperor is famous, which carried the reſemblance of Margarite a Roth Abbateſſe of Eteſtetten, Tho. Eraſtus de Lami…s, pag. 17.& could not only be ſeene and handled, but alſo ſpeake moſt ſignificantly. George Sabin, a man honored for his learning with the dignity of knighthood by Charles the 5. and ſonne in law to Phil. Melancthon, Sabin, Elg: 1. Eleg. 3 Eleg. lib, 4 Eleg. 4writeth of three apparitions in his time, one of ſixe ſpirits in the forme of moncks, ferried ouer the Rhene by a fiſherman of Spire: The ſecond of a whole charriot full of monks: the third of a maid wooed by a ſpirit in the ſimilitude of a man. And it is knowne what of late hath happened at Bertin, and other places of Saxony. At Spandaw in Germany in the yeare 1594. Sep. 13. the diuel appeared in the ſhape of a man,Gallob…lg. lib. 11: to a yong youth Gabriell Crū mer, offering him great ritches if he would promiſe to be at his pleaſure, & this not once, but the ſecond time. To him alſo appeared Gabriel a ſpirit in ſhew of a good angel, foure ſeuerall times. In the ſāe towne the diuel did walke viſibly in the view of diuers. It were end leſſe to inſiſt vponupon reherſall of the manifould examples of this kīde. Yea ſomething to this purpoſe may be ſayd out of holy Scripture. Chryſoſtome writing vponupon the patience of Iob ſaith, that he which brought tidings of the houſe, & deſtruction of his famely & cattle, was not a man, but a spirit. For if thou wert a man (ſaith he) how didſt thou know that this winde came from the wilderneſſe? or if thou wert there, how hapneth it that thou waſt not deſtroyed with the reſt? Some thinge alſo it maketh (as I thinke) for confirmation hereof, that foure ſeuerall meſſengers vſe not only the ſame ſpeach, but the verie ſame wordes: I onelyonly am eſcaped to tell thee. Alſo that they come ſo patt one after the other, before the former had ended his ſpeach,Iob. 1. v: 15 16.17.19: & that one of them ſaith The fire of god is fallen from heauen, and hath burnt vp &c. Piſcator ſaith,in Math. 4 3. that when the diuel came to Chriſt in the wilderneſſe to tempt him, he came in ſpecie viri &c. in the ſhape of a man, as angels are wont to doe when they appeare vntounto men. And this we ſhall the rather beleeue, if we remember that the diuel is ſaid to come vntounto Christ, to hauehave ſpeach with Chriſt: that the tempted him in communication, Hither alſo apperteineth,1 Sam. 28:7:8: that witches are ſaid to hauehave their familiar spirits. Except the diuels did put vponupon them bodies, and in them were familiarly conuerſant with theſe wicked weomen, how could there be any familiarity betwene a diuel & a woman? Did not alſo the angels thus as oft as they did familiarly conuerſe with men? Beſides who knoweth not this to be verrified in daily experience?de operibus red: part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 16 Zanchius hauing affirmed that (in his iudgment) diuels can aſſume bodies, and in them appeare, speake &c. vſeth theſe words. More ouer there be very many, & thoſe verie graue writers, who affirme that this hath fallen out often. Auguſtine writeth ſo of this matter, that he ſaith it is impudēcie to denie it. And a little after Zanchius ſaith aſmuch himſelfe. Without the note of impudencie this cannot be denied. And who is there liuing that doubteth of the diuels appearing to ſome heere and there in viſible formes and ſhapes at this day? Or that witches and diuels in bodyes aſſumed, hauehave familiar ſpeach & communication togither? Doe we not daily heare of ſuch occurrents? Doe not witches in all countries, make thus much knowne by their confeſſions? with many circumſtances therevnto apperteyninge, which all tend to the confirmation hereof. Verily the diuel his aſſuming of bodies and appearing in them vntounto men, is ſo manifeſt by experience in all ages, paſt and preſent, that we may wel ſay with Auguſtine and Zanchius, It is impudencie to deny it. Thus impudent are none, but thoſe who either deny that there are diue…s, or witches. The leſſer of which is horrible impiety. This then is an other vntruth.
And heere (by the way) we may aſſure our ſelues that the Diſcourſers deny this latter, and are of opinion there a…e no witches, n r any bewitched. For if diuels cann…t aſſu… bodies, with…ut which they cannot appeare, nor hauehave any familiarity with men: if …econdly Sathan hauehave no power to to…ment, vex or any way t… afflict t…e b…d… of man as theſe men alſo tell vsus, in affirming that there is no a…tuall poſſeſſiō in theſe daies of the goſpell how are there any who hauehave familyar ſpirits, whome the ſcripture calleth witches? Or that be afflicted in their bodies by the miniſtery of Sathan & mallice of a witch, which is that we call bewitching? This is ſomething confirmed by their oft quoting of M. Sk…t his Diſcou…ry of witchcraft, and their commending of that his expoſition of 1. Sam. 28.8. &c. Hereby it is manifeſt that togither with M. Sk…t they hold that there are no witches, nor any at this day bewitched. They doe not indede deliuer this in plaine tearmes, leaſt happely they ſhould thereby irritate the reuerend Iudges of the land, by making them guilty of ſhedding much innocent bloud: but you ſee that from ſome of their publike aſſertions it is to be gathered by neceſſary colle…tion: and how they approue of that booke which denyeth witches & witchraft, yea doe commend it: ſaying: that if without preiudice, and with a ſingle reſpect to the truth, we would but d…liberately …ruſe that priuiledged diſcourſe, &c. then ſhould we without doubt ſee a diabolicall diſcourſe publiſhed with priuiledge.
Laſtly you ſay that the aforeſaid argument is a deceiuable Elēch, from may be, to being indeede. I pray you Diſcourſ…rs is not the queſtion of may be? Is not your poſition in the begīning of this dialogue, whether ſpirits & diuels can aſſume &c. We vſe then no El…n…h in the matter, but you a meere dotage, which like the butcher hauehave forgotten the knife in your mouth. Beſides, this & ſuch like argumēts be rather ab poſſe, ad poſſe, then a poſſe ad …ſſ…: as a childe that hath learned but Sum & P ſſum, may (helped a little) be able to tell you.
page, 107. PſAl. 78 49.The ſecond reaſon for aſſuming of b…dies, are the words of the pſalme: He caſt vponupon them the feirceneſſe of his anger, indignation, and wrath, by ſending angels of euil. Heere you afford a double anſwer. Firſt, that Angels of euil, be angels that were denouncers of euil, that is, Moſes & Aaron, as Trem…lius interprets it, with whom you accord. Secondly that whatſoeuer theſe Angels be, yet they are ſaide onlie to be ſent among them, not into them, and therefore no proofe can be had from hence for aſſuming of bodies.
I reuerence the authority of …eme…ius, and dare not take vppon me to cenſure his doing: yet againſt it I might al…eadg the conſe…t of many interpretors. …ut inſtead of them all the booke of wiſdōe ſhall alone ſerue, which alluding, to this place expoundeth thoſe Angell, …f euill, to be horrible & fearfull ſights. Th y were ſcattered, chap: 17:3.4.14:(ſaith he) ſ…ar…ng b… …ibly, & were …bled with ap…ritions. Againe, terrible vi…ons and ſ…rrowfull … ghts did appeare vntounto them. Againe, S…times they were troubled with monſtrous apparitions. Hereby it is apparant that theſe ang…ls …f euil were cōſtrued by the learned Iewes in auncient time, not to be Moſes and Aaron, but wicked ſpirits. Secon…ly, that though they were not ſent into the Aegyptians, (for then they ſhould …aue poſſeſſed them, which neuer any affirmed) yet they were ſent amongſt them in terrible formes, which coulde not be but by aſſuming ſome ſen…ble bodies, which is ſufficient againſt you: and as much as is inforced from this ſcripture. And now let the Reader chuſe, whether he will rather follow the booke of wiſdome, or your booke of folly.pag. 108.
The third argument is: The diuell aſſumed the body of the Serpent when he tempted Evah.
You oppoſe heerevnto a threefould reply: Firſt, If the diuel entred eſſentially into the Serpent, then either he became an eſſentiall Serpent, or the ſerpent an eſſentiall diuell. Surely you are bereft of cōmon vnderſtanding which ſo confidently blatter out ſuch palpable ignorance. Doth not god eſſentially dwel in all things? But is the creature thereby made god, or God the creature? Secondly, you ſay that the ſerpent in this place is not a naturall ſerpent, pag 109. 110 111: 112: 113but metaphorically the diu ll. It were tedious to refute particularly your childiſh proofes. If all the circumſtances in G…neſis 3. could not induce you to acknowledg a naturall ſerpent, as the inſtrument of ſathan in that temptation, yet the Analogie of the …econd Adam (which wrought our ſaluation by vntwiſting that threed, which the diuell had ſpun to our deſtruction) ought to hauehave preuayled ſomething with you.Mat. 3.16:17 Our Sauiour being baptiſed the ſpirit of god deſcended vponupon him like a doue: and a voyce from heauen proclaymed him withall to be the beloued ſonne of god. By which it is playne that as in ouerthrowing the firſt Adam there was a wicked ſpirit, ſo in eſtabliſhing the ſecond Adam there was the holy ſpirit: as to deceaue the firſt there was vſed a ſerpent, ſo to confirme the ſecond Adam there was vſed a doue: as the firſt by the diuels fraud in the ſerpent, was quite ſtripped of all ſauing graces, and diſherited from beinge the ſonne of god, ſo the ſecond by the ſpirit of truth in the doue, was as it were viſibly repleniſhed with the fulneſſe of all grace, and not only himſelf then ſolemnly annoynted to be the ſonne of god, but alſo by whome all the Elect ſhould be made partakers of the ſame dignity. From whence then I reaſon by Analogie thus. That if at the ſecond Adam his inſtalling into his office there was viſibly and ſubſtantially apparant a Doue, wherein was repletiuely the holy ghoſt: then at the deceauing of the firſt Adam, there was viſibly & ſubſtantially a ſerpent, wherein was definitiuely the wicked ſpirit. The nature of Oppoſites require that where one is reall, the other ſhould be alſo reall. And the ſerpent & the doue be vſually in the ſcriptures ſet one againſt the other. And thus much for your ſecōd reply which you ſhut vp with a Probatum eſt, becauſe Reignald Skot houlding the ſame opinion, his booke and the opinion it ſelf, is very authentically priuiledged in our Engliſh Church by publique authority. pag. 115.As for M. Skot there is none of any ſound vnderſtanding, but he allows his iudgmēt better in a Hopground, then in a caſe of diuinitie. And as for his & your Priuiledg whereon you brag your ſelfe ſo much, take heede leaſt you ſtrayning your M. his countenaunce too farr, to beare out your abſurdityes, he plvck not his cloath ouer your eares.page, 116, Your third reply yealds, that Sathan was there togither with the ſerpent, but not in the ſerpent, and you would faine prooue, The diuel could apply the ſerpents tongue to his purpoſe, though he entred not in eſſentially into him, no leſſe then a Minstrell can make his pipes ſound what he pleaſe, albeit he enter not eſſentially into the baggs. And in this merry conceyt you fling about your armes like winde mill ſayles in a morryce dance, thinking your ſelues ſome iolly fellowes. But if the pride of your iollity be paſt, let me demaund of you this queſtion, what is the true efficient of the ſounde of the pipe? The minſtrell, or the motion of the aer by his breath? You muſt needes anſwer it is the motion of the aer: for the pipe will ſound as well by a paire of bellowes tyed at his arme, as by the breath of his mouth: as is apparant in Organes and other winde inſtruments.Ariſt. Phyſ. lib. 8. cap: 2. Beeſides it is a rule in nature, That the mouer and the thing moued, must needes touch one an other without entercourſe of any thing comming betwene. Now then if the piper be not the true efficient, it is no marueile if no neceſſity force him to creepe into the bag: but if the breath and the mouing of the aer be the true worker indeed, that muſt both enter into the bagg, & into the pipe too, or elſe nothing at all will be donne. But you will reply, that the ſpirit may be likewiſe not the principall efficient, but remayning with out as the Minſtrell doth, might ſend ſomething into the ſerpent to cauſe ſuch a workinge. I anſwer, the ſpirit is the principall efficient. For in ſupernaturall workes it muſt needes be the principall mouer ſhould be ſupernaturall in regard of that worke. And therefore ſeeing the wicked ſpirit is cheif agent, it is neceſſary he ſhould be ioyned immediatly to that which is moued by him, without interpoſition of any other thinge. If then you can count your game, you ſhall ſee you hauehave got nothing by this reckoning, but only a vaine hope to make your ſelues merry withall for a time.
The fourth argument for aſſuming bodies is drawne from the Angels sp…aking in Baalams aſſe, Num. 22:2… pag: 117. 118which you labour to infringe two waies: firſt for that it was not an angell, but Ichouah himſelf which cauſed that ſpeaking: ſecondly if it were an angel, yet he speakes no otherwiſe then the former ſimilitude of a Minſtrel did declare. For the firſt, I anſwer you argue deceiptfully in oppoſinge Iehouah and an angell in this action, as if they could not be ioynt workers, Iehoua principally, the angell miniſterially: eſpecially ſeeing it is the manner of the ſcripture to attribute that to the Lord without mention of any other, which notwithſtanding he adminiſtreth by meanes. Iehova (ſalth Moſes) talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midſt of the fier. Deu. 5.4.22.And againe after he hath repeated the ten commandements, he ſaith: Theſe words Iehova ſpake vntounto all your multitude in the mount &c In which he teacheth that Iehova was a Law-giuer, & nameth no other whoſe office was vſed therein: Yet Stephen ſaith, They receaued the law by the ministery of angels. And S. Paule: It was ordayned by angels in the hand of a mediator. Act. 7, 53: Galat. 3.19.You ſee then how trifeling this argument is. But you will ſay: In the giuing of the lawe, the ſcripture doth warrant a miniſtery of angels, but in the matter of Balaam no ſuch thing is any where taught. I anſwer, It is a good rule obſerued by ſome for interpreting the ſcriptures Aequalis est doctrina, quae venit a phraſi aequali. Equall manner of speach doth afforde equall doctrine. Beeſides ſhall we thinke the greateſt workes of all other, as the giuing of the law,Luke 22, 43: and the comfortinge of Chriſt himſelfe were performed by angels, & that the Lord reſerueth the baſeſt and meaneſt actions to be done immediatly by himſelfe.
Greate cauſe therefore had thoſe famous learned men Lyra, Martyr, Zanchius, &c. to acknowledg an angell in this buſyneſſe, whoſe iudgments if you had wayed and followed, it had bene more commendation for you, then thus to roue at randome with your bolts. Further you vrge, It could not be an angel that opened the aſſes mouth, becauſe the Angel ſtood before Balaam with a drawne ſword in his hand to hauehave ſlaine him, and Angels can not be in ſondry places at the ſame inſtant. I anſwer, Seeing the Lord did open the mouth of the aſſe, and Baalams eyes by angels as hath bene proued, that not one angell alone, but diuers were vſed in this buſineſſe. He which hath ſo many thouſand of thouſands waiting vponupon his throne for all deſeignes, ſhould he for defect of ſeruitors be faine to worke in his owne perſon? Whereas you ſay ſecondly, Admitting it was an Angell, yet he spake no otherwiſe then the ſimilitude of a Minſtrell declareth. I anſwer, If he ſpake in ſuch ſort, he muſt needes then really be in the aſſe, conſidering the true efficient of the pipes ſound, is the mouinge of the aer (which is eſſentially in the pipe) and not the Minſtrel. Beſids in all things which are moued, the Mouer is immediatly applyed and ioyned vntounto the thing moued. And why ſhould Angels neceſſarily be ſent in perſon to thoſe ſeueral places where buſineſſe lye, if they were able to accompliſh them being abſent? I paſſe ouer your ridiculous conceit,page 119. of the Angells eſſentiall conuerſion into the aſſe, and how he was ridden, and galloped, & spurred, & ſtricken &c. which things no doubt, & more the aſſe had ſuffred, if either of you had bene in Balaams ſtead: For ſet a foole on horſback, and he will gallop.
page, 120, 1 Sam, 28:The fift argument for aſſuming of bodies, is from the apparition in the likeneſſe of Samuell: which example, if you bounde your queſtion with ſtrict tearmes of a true naturall body, we vſe not in proofe of this matter. For the ſounder iudgment is, That apparition was a meere phantaſie and illuſion of Sathan. But if you intend (as indeede you doe) that euil ſpirits take vponupon them neither true nor phantaſticall bodies, that is, which be truly materiall & viſible, though not compacted of fleſh and bone, in which ſence only we oppoſe it to a true body in this place, then this example is of force to preſſe you. You incline to Reig. Skott his opinion who would hauehave it but a meere coſening trick of the witch at Endor, without any apparition at all either to the king, pag. 125.or to the witch. But this fancy wanteth ſufficient foundation to ſtand on. M. Skott woulde prooue that Saule ſaw nothing, becauſe he aſked the witch what ſhe ſaw, and what was his forme? It is true that Saule ſaw nothing at firſt,1 Sam: 28:13 14. for thinges were donne by degrees, as the text plainly ſhewes. Before the reſemblance of Samuell came vp, the witch ſaw other ſpirits like Gods aſcending, then when they were vaniſhed ſhe beheld the forme of Samuell, yet not fully aſcended: at which time ſhe cryed out and anſwered Saul his demaund. After the Image was now perfectly come vp, Saul alſo himſelf ſaw him, as may be gathered by his bowing himſelf and falling downe: for otherwiſe Saul, was of that temper both in regard of his regall dignity, and his own naturall courage, that it was not his manner to ſtoope to nothing. If one then ſhall reaſon thus, Saul ſaw nothing when he aſked the queſtion, therefore neither afterwards when he bowed himſelfe, there is no validity in ſuch a conſequence. Therefore M. Skott failes much in his proofe: he hath not ſufficiently ſhewed that nothing appeared vntounto Saul. And admitting he had cleared that, yet this was but one part of his taſke. He ſhould alſo hauehave made it plaine that neither the witch ſaw any thing, beefore he had growne to this generall concluſion of no apparition at all. The diuel at this day viſibly appeareth to many of our wiſe-men and wiſe weomen, when they which cōe to aſke counſaile of them, neither ſee nor heare any thing, but hauehave their anſwer at the ſecond hand from their mouth. Were it ſo then that Saul neither ſaw nor heard any thinge, but what he receaued from the witch, this notwithſtandinge, there might well be an apparition: and without controuerſy there was ſo. Otherwiſe how coulde the witch hauehave knowne Saul? and foretould thoſe thinges which afterwards fell out accordingly?Page 125: To the former of theſe you anſwer (and what ye will ſay to the latter we ſhall know heereafter) that ſhe of herſelfe might and did know him very well, howſoeuer ſhe diſſembled the ſame for the preſent. This is incredible.. That a ſilly woman dwellinge far from the court, ſhould ſo well knowe the King, that though he changed himſelfe, put on other rayment, & went by night, accompanied only with two men, and thus did what he could to be vnknowne, (becauſe being knowne he could not bringe his purpoſe to paſſe) yet ſhe ſhould know him. Eſpecially if withal we remember, that ſhe was a witch, or at leaſt reputed ſo to be, & that Saul had deſtroyed the witches, and ſorcerers out of the land:pag. 126. and therefore ſhe could hauehave ſmall harte to looke the king ſo often in the face, whereby to attaine to this perfect knowledge of him. And where you ſay that the conferēce performed to Saul, was cuningly deliuered by the witch alone in her cell, ſhe being a cunnīg Ventriloquist, as all Pythoniſts are: who can very hydeouſlie speake in the bottom of their bellies, with an hollow counterfeyt voice, and therein by practiſe ſhe was verie expert. I anſwer: you may tell vsus alſo that the moone is made of a greene cheeſe, but we may chuſe whether we will beleue you. Yea, I for my part will as ſoone beeleue this, as that For how could this ſilly woman (with all her cunning and craft) foretell, firſt the ouerthrow of the Iſraelites. 2. that it ſhoude be on the morrow. 3. that in that ouerthrow Saul and his ſonnes ſhould be ſlaine. Neither is it credible that ſhe was able to make knowne to Saul the true cauſe of this feirce wrath of the Lorde, ready to be executed vponupon him, and that his kingdome being rent from him, ſhould be giuen to Dauid: all which be mentioned in this conference. Moreouer, if the witch did vſe a meere coſinage, and that ſhe herſelfe did ſee nothing, it ſhould ſeeme this art of ſorcery, conſiſteth only in the opinion of men, and that in very deede witches can doe no more by Spirits, neither hauehave any greater familiarity with thē, then all others hauehave. But then wherefore doth the ſcripture condemne them for counſelling with ſpirits? Deut: 18, 11, 1 Sam. 28, 7, 8.and mention theire hauing of familiar spirits? For theſe reaſons I thinke it ſtands better with reaſon to ioyn with the vniuerſall conſent of all the learned, then to follow M. Skott his ſinguler opinion, though the diſcourſe be priuiledged. Hitherto for your refutation.
The ſhutting vp of this Dialogue alleadgeth ſome authorities for Not aſſuming bodies, none of all which make to the purpoſe. Peter Lumbard propoundeth a double queſtion,pag. 127, 128. Mag. ſent, lib 2, diſtinct: 8. firſt whether diuels do ſubſtantially enter into the bodies of men: the ſecond whether they eſſentially ſlip into their mindes. To the firſt he anſwers doubtfully, but doth not deny it as theſe Diſcourſers doe. To the ſecond negatiuely. Then you produce the teſtimony of Gennadius, Beda, & Auguſtine: which likewiſe deny an eſſentiall entrance into the minde. But what is this to eſſentiall entring into the body? Theſe are two things diſtinct, and if you had not purpoſed fraud, you would not hauehave alleadged authorityes denying an eſſentiall entrance into the mindes, to diſprooue eſſentiall entrance into the body. Touching the reſt of your teſtimonies, I am aſhamed to ſpend time in rehearſing them. I graunt with Chriſoſtome, the diuel cannot compell to ſinne, but ſuggeſt: with Lyra, that he is not formally in any, as the forme of that body wherein he is: with Muſculus, That he hath no abſolute authority, but a ſubiected ſeruitude: with Gregory, that the power of Sathan is neuer v…iuſt, though his will be alwaies w…ck…d: with T…lſ…egiſtus, that a… human… ſoule cannot receau… any other to mak… one pe…ſ…n with i… (excepted only the ſonne of god) then an humane b…. I graunt you a l which the…e teſtimonies …u…u…n, but what game you therby for ſtrengthening your cauſe? It is great folly to trouble your Reader with ſuch impertinent wordes in the laſt place comes Reig: Sk…t to make all …ure. In…eede …is teſtimony is pregnant for you.page. 129. But in the wordes you cite out of him be conteyned two infamous ſentences, That the Diu…ls cann…t by any meanes make them ſelues ſeene: that to aſſume a bo…y for appea…ance, o… other ſeruice, is all one a… if the ſpirit leaving the …ſſence of a spir…t, ſh uld become co…porall. For ſo is the meaning of his wordes. And what is his reaſon? why (forſooth) the diuel by his nature is a ſpirit, and therefore inv…ible & inſenſible, and ſo this is contrarie to his nature. By this reaſon there was neuer apparition of holy angels: for they be likewiſe ſpirits, invi…ble, inſenſible &c. Surely they which made trees in times paſt to call parliaments, ſpake with as great probabillity, as M. Skot hath a…irmed this, as is apparant by that already ſet downe.