A discourse of the subtill practises of deuilles by vvitches and sorcerers By which men are and haue bin greatly deluded: the antiquitie of them: their diuers sorts and names. With an aunswer vnto diuers friuolous reasons which some doe make to prooue that the deuils did not make those aperations in any bodily shape. By G. Gyfford.

An answere vnto certaine friuolous reasons, which some doe make to proue that the Deuils did not make those appari∣tions, & that he cannot appeare in any bodily shape. The 7. Chapter.

THere is nothing almost so plaine, but that there may be cauils made against it, and some probable shewe of reason, such therfore as take vp∣on them to maintaine that Wit∣ches and coniurers doe nothing by the helpe of Deuils, and that spy∣rites can take no visible shape, de∣uise all the shiftes which they are able, to auoid those testimonies of scripture which I haue al∣leaged. It is necessary therfore that ere I proceede any fur∣ther, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the futility and vanity be shewed of the chiefe rea∣sons which are brought for that purpose. First touching the Enchaunters of Egypt, might it not be that they made Ser∣pents indeede by naturall Magicke, for they which do know the secretes of nature may do things straunge & meruellous, To this I answere, that if Iannes and Iambres did by their skil in the secrete power of nature, turne their staues into ve∣ry serpents, I know few of the miracles of Christ, which they might not eyther doe, or as greate. Christ turned water into Wine. If those Enchaunters had bene there and by naturall Magicke had turned their staues into serpents, who woulde not, or might not iustly haue affirmed their miracle to be the greater? The workes which Christ did beare witnes of him, as he saith, to declare that he was the sonne of god. How could this testimonie bee infallible, if so greate thinges might bee wrought by the power of nature, we see then it is against pi∣etie to bring such a thing in question, any way to beate it into mens heads. Againe, if those Magicians had such skill to worke by nature, they must needs go beyond nature her selfe, which were a foule absurdity to bee anye way graunted,

for they could bring forth serpents at an instant, and she can not bring forth the least things that grow, or that haue life but by degrees: take a little flie, first it is a fliblow, then a maggot, and afterwards commeth to haue wings, both god∣linesse and nature condemning such opinion of naturall ma∣gike, I will speake no further of it. It will be obiected that yet notwithstanding it doth not follow of necessitie that they did it by the diuell, for there is a third waie by which by all likelihood it was done, If there be but a third, as indeed it is vnpossible to find a fourth, and that it be proued not to be by that, then it must of necessitie be left vnto the first, that is to the diuell. Let vs see what that is: what absurditie say some can follow, if we affirme that they were very serpents indeed, and that God himself did make them, to the end that Pharaos hart might be hardened: I answer that here will greater absurditie follow, than by affirming that the sorcerers by their inchantments did make a shew of serpents, and that hee which coueteth to auoid Charibdis doth fall into Scylla, shun∣ning one danger, lighteth into a greater▪ for (if men will see) there is no absurditie at all to affirme that the diuell did make appearance of serpents, but to saie the staues were tur∣ned into verie serpents indeed, and that God did it, doth draw a taile after it which is not sweete. If this may be, or that these two might stand together, that God doth condemne in∣chantments, and now worke by inchanters, yet how ab∣surd were this for any man to affirme, that the power of God did resist and withstand himselfe, for Moses and Aaron came in the power of God, Paule saith Iannes and Iambres withstood them, if God turned their staues into Serpents, then God withstood them, & his power was opposed against himselfe, his woonders were for to fight one against another. The Lord is brought in here on both sides, I know not what other men can see, but so farre as I can iudge, this is grosse impiette.

Moreouer, these Magicians were in great credit and esti∣mation with Pharaoh and his princes for doing such like

matters before 〈◊〉〈◊〉: otherwise how should it come into Pharaos minde so readely to send for them for such a pur∣pose.

Admit the king were a slely foole, and his nobles simple men, which could not espie cosenage, yet how commeth it to passe that these Sorcerers go so boldly vnto the matter? Here is no place for cosenage now, there is no sleight, nor no conueiance wrought onely by man, which is able to car∣rie away the matter. They must now shew somewhat which is not in mans power, or else all is marred, for they shall be∣wray themselues to be meere coseners, and so become ridi∣culous, and not onely that, but also the king espying their former deceits it will cost them their liues. They bee not afraid, they draw not backe, they make no excuses, shall wee imagine they did know God would turne their staues into serpents? No, we see they tooke Moses to be such an one as themselues, and therefore were bold to oppose themselues, and to withstand him, vntill such time as they were euen forciblie constrained to acknowledge that Moses and Aaron did worke by the power of God. This, say they, is the finger of God, wherby they secretly confesse that theirs was no such* 1.1 power. The witch that K. Saule went vnto, wrought by the diuell, the thing is cleare and manifest, but there is nothing so euident, but that some shew of reason may be made against it, and that with such coullors as may deceiue the dim sight of ignorant persons▪ this therefore must come also to be scan∣ned, for sundry vaine and ridiculous cauils are gathered and patched togither, to proue that it was neither the Deuill nor Samuel, but a meere cousenage by the Witch, or by some com∣panion, to say it was Samuel is very absurde, as we haue also before shewed, and to proue that it was not the Deuill, firste there is brought for helpe the blind opinion of a Papist, who sayth that the Deuill cannot abide the hearing of the name Iehouah which is fiue times named in that cōmunication be∣tweene Samuel & Saull, it is to be accounted among the vile and filthy abominations of popery, that they ascribe a power

to driue away Deuils vnto words & sillabes pronounced; is euery wicked man able to driue away the Deuill? For there is none so vile but is able to pronounce the word Iehouah, & in deede the name Iehouah is seuen times vsed in that place, & all by the Deuill himselfe there speaking vnto King Saule. I do hold most firmly that euery supernatural worke is by the po∣wer of God, and to giue witnesse to the truth, but heere is none, this is no miracle but such as the nature of the Deuill is fit and able to accomplish. A man may wonder to see, that the same penne should write, that euery supernaturall worke or myracle is of God, & is a testimonie of truth: and y^• God turned the staues of Pharaos Enchaunters into Serpentes, which in very deed withstode the truth, but thus some argue the Witch did knowe Saule, a•…•…d dissembled in saying that she did not, and therefore did connterfait in all the rest▪ to make this a necessarie consequence, there must first be proued that which is omitted, namelie that dissimulation and witchcraft are such dissentanea as cannot be found at once in one subiect, or that a woman can not be both a dissembler and a Witch, proofe is made that the woman did know Saule, but with that which is weak•…•…, and with that which is false.

Saul was a very tall man therfore she did know him so soone as she saw him, did she know his iust stature, or was she sure there was none in all those partes so tall as the king. A wise man might sooner be deceiued that way, then a man of meane wit with this argument. It is saide that her house was nigh vnto Saules house, which diuers circumstaunces do declare, and thereby she must needes knowe him, this is vtterly false, for Saul did not come vnto her from his house but from the Campe. The Towne where this Witch dwelt was En∣dor in the tribe of Manasses. Ioshua. 17. ver. 11. Saules house was at Gybeah a Cittie of the Beniamites, of which tribe he was. 1. sam. 15. 34 the Philistines had pitched their campe at Shunem in the border of Issacher.

Saule had gathered the men of Israell and went and pit∣ched nigh vnto them, and from thence hee went vnto the wit∣ches

house, which was not far off. The like may be said of Samuell, that he was not hir neigbhour, for he dwelt at Rama in mount Ephraim▪ whether Saule did see anie apparition or not, the words doe not flatlie affirme, but most like that hee did, though not so soone as she. If he did not see but heare a voice, can it be concluded that therefore it was consenage, it appeareth that Saule fell downe vpon his face to worship and that he which spake vnto him was now in his presence. Nei∣ther is it said that the woman came out vnto Saule, or that she went in vnto him, but that she went vnto him being sore troubled and lieng vpon the ground. But the strongest rea∣son of all is yet behind to be gathered out of the speech vsed vnto Saule. The speech and phrase is such as agreeth not with the nature and purpose of a diuell, for the papists doe confesse that the diuell can not abide at the naming of God. They doe indeed, and such as beleeue them are not much wiser than they. The diuell seeketh for to draw men into sinne, and not to warne and rebuke them for euill as he doth Saule.

If this had beene a diuell, he would haue beene more craf∣tie than to leaue so godly an admonition which should be pre∣iudiciall vnto his kingdome. Alacke, alacke, I see that those which take vpon them to be wiser than all men, are soonest deceiued by the diuell. Doth not saint Paule affirme that Sathan can transforme himselfe into the likenesse of an An∣gell of light▪ Can not he or doath not he vse right excellent godly speeches mixed with bad, to the end he may deceaue? There can not almost be a more subtil speech to establish ab∣hominable errors, than that which he here vseth vnto Saule? It is not disagreeing from his nature, nor any preiudice vn∣to his kingdome to speake good words, to the end hee maye doe hurt.

Those were good words, and might seeme to be vttered vnwiselie to the decay of their owne kingdome, when diuels came out of many crieng and testifieng, That Iesus was the sonne of God: but they were craftilie spoken, and for a pesti∣lent

purpose, and therefore Christ chargeth them to keepe si∣lence.

What an excellent speeche doth the Dauill vtter out of the maide at Philippos, when she followed Paule and the other mi∣nisters* 1.2 of the gospel which were with him? These men, saith that Deuill, be the sernants of the most high God which de∣clare vnto you the way of saluation? What can be spoken more pithely in fewe wordes to set foorth the dignity of the Apostle and his companions? What can more commend the certainty and preciousnesse of their doctrine, he setteth foorth, and commendeth those ministers of the Gospell, to be the ser∣uants of the most high God. What saith the Apostle more by the spirtte of God when he doth moue men to esteeme of him not as of a common person? Is not this the greatest dignitie he challengeth, Paule a seruant of God, an Apostle of Iesus Christ? What is more precious then saluation? Who ought to be more welcome? Then they whose doctrine doth guide men in the way thereunto? God himselfe doth send it, it must needes be infallible. Doth S. Paule say any more in effect, when he calleth the Gospell the word of reconciliation? And saith they were Embassadors from God to doe the message? Did the Deuill forget himselfe at this tyme? Was he desi∣rous indeede that Paule should be had in honour, & that men should harken vnto his doctrine, to learne the way of salua∣tion? Would hee goe about to throwe downe or diminish his owne kingdome, or was he so sottish that he did not knowe what was against himself? This is more straunge, that the Deuils which gaue aunsweres being accounted Gods, and credite giuen vnto them and worshipped as Gods among the Heathen, would yet giue such a testimonie, there was no commendation esteemed so among the Heathen, such as at that time were the people of Philippos, so much as the com∣mendation which Apollo gaue of any man. For nowe they thought, euen a God had spoken it which could not lye. This might seeme to be the way to set all in admiration of Paule. But the blessed seruaunt of GOD, did knowe the

craft and •…•…lice of this cursed fiend: and tooke it grieuously that he should take vpon him to be as a fellow minister with them, euen a Preacher of the Gospell. If any man will be so bolde or rather impudent, to affirme that this was not the Deuill which gaue aunsweres in the word, and which vetre•…•…this goodly speech, but was some cousenage, I will saye no more but this: let all men peruse the historie set downe by S. Luke, and iudge indifferentlie, whether the holy spirite of truth affirming one thing be to be credited, or vaine •…•… men maintayning the contrarie. Let vs obserue further some o∣ther circumstances & we shall easely see it was not the Witch nor any man or woman which spake thus vnto Saul. First this is a cleare case, that the Witch could not for certaintye know that Saul should be ouerthrown. For to say that the peo∣ple had forsaken him is vtterly false, he had (as the holy ghost reporteth) gathered all Israell vnto the battell, and mustred a great army, Saul was affraid, but yet hee kept it close from the people, for they set valiantly vpon the hoast of the Philisti∣ans, & fought with them, then if the woman could not knowe for certaintie that Saul should at that time be ouerthrowne, how durst she plainly tell him that he should die, & that with∣in so short a space, euen the next day? If he had escaped at that time, woulde it not haue coste hir the best bloode in her bo∣dye?

Would not hir cousenage haue bene espied, and how she had certefied the king to his danger? no punishmēt could be sharp ynough for such a fact. It will be aunswered that the Deuill could not know for certainey that Saul should be ouerthrown. It is very true, but yet he could collect more certainly then any man, he did see more on both sides then the Witch coulde gather by a few wordes, he knew what was the strength & courage of the Philistians, and that they purposed to fight the next day, and what doubt was in the hart of Saul, the woman could not be sure when the battell would be. He did know y^• God would cast off Saul, as he had spoken by Samuel, the most part of the people did not regard what God spake by his ser∣uaunts

the Prophets, so that we may well thinke (that if the poore Witch heard h•…•…e what Samuel sayd) yet she could not tel when, nor in what maner, nay she was one which regarded not the voice of gods Prophets, for if she had, she would not haue bene a Witch. If the deuill were deceiued & that the K. had escaped yet he needed not to feare, there was no waye to punish him, he durst speake boldly & reproue the king, the su∣rest way for the Witch (if she had vsed but cousenage) had bin to tell Saul a smoth tale to flatter him, and to incourage him vnto the battell, for then if he had fallen, he could not come a∣gaine to reproue hir, if he had escaped, she should haue bene had in great estimation, and richly rewarded. And who is so simple in the knoweledg of Gods word and the Histories set forth therein, but must needes confesse, that it hath alwayes bin the manner of couseners and flatterers to tell Kinges of prosperous and good successe, and to speake pleasaunt things. Wherefore do couseners and flatterers practise their lewde∣nesse, but for fauour and gaine? Can any be fit for such a pur∣pose, which is so foolishe as to tell a King that hee shall be destroyed? Was this Kinge Saul growne contemptible and of no power? Wee may see in the Historie that hee was of greate force and dealte cruelly. For he destroyed Nob the Citie of the Priestes with the edge of the sworde, hee persecuted Dauid, and had many to set him on, durste now a poore woman dispise him? Was the forme of words vsed by Samuel so commonlie bruted abroade, and in eue∣rye mans mouth, that the verie Witch had it so perfectlie. Men will not speake that which is against the King & to his dishonor in the dayes that he liueth. If those wordes of Sa∣muel were publikly spread among the people, yet they were not beleeued, but of the smalest part this is plainely proued by this, that after the death of Saul, the most of the Tribes of Israel did not admitte of Dauid whome Samuel had anoyn∣•…•…ed, but cleaue vnto the house of Saul, and made warre. Dauid was now in Banishmente fled out of the Countrye, there was no shewe that he should be King, and yet in this

speeche vnto Saull it is said expresly, God will rend the king∣dome from out of thy hande, and giue it to Dauid. I doubt not but whosoeuer considereth these thinges, and is not wil∣fully bent to maintaine his owne conceite, hee will confesse that this was the Deuill, who knoweth what God speaketh by his Prophetes, and is right sure it will come to passe. Whereas the most part of men neuer regarde what the Lord hath spoken.

The Deuill did speake vnto Eua out of the Serpent. A* 1.3 thing manifest to prooue that Deuils can speake, vnlesse we immagine that age hath made him forgetfull and toungue tyde. Some holde that there was no visible Serpent before Eua, but an inuisible thing described after that manner, that we might be capable therof. The reasons which are brought for proofe are more then friuolous, and therefore I will but briefely touche them. It was the Deuill himselfe and not a snake which seduced Eua, that is moste true. For who doth maintaine that the beast was any more but the outward in∣instrument which the Deuill vsed. This instrument was not a snake, but one of the greater beastes. For Nachash doth not onely signifie a snake, but also the beaste which is called a serpent. Whereof there be diuers kindes and some greater then other. Behemoth are beastes, among which wormes are not reckoned, and this Serpent is matched with them, as one of them▪ When it is saide thou art cursed aboue euerye beaste. It is further saide, that if heere by the name Ser∣pent were ment both the Deuill and a beast, the holy ghost would haue made some distinction, that we might bee enfor∣med, as though it were such an absurdity to set foorth the story as it did at that time appeare vnto Eua, and to compre∣hend vnder the name of that which was visible & knowne be∣ing the instrument, the chiefe worker who was vnknowne & invisible? Eua did not as yet know of the fall of Angels, shee knew no name of Deuill or Sathan, she did not vnderstande that there was a Deuill, no doubt God did instruct both A∣dam and Eua that there was another besides that visible ser∣pent,

when he promised them victory by Christ▪ further this is ob∣iected, that the Deuill is called a Serpent by an Allegorie, and therefore what necessity to take it there of a beast? I answere that the Deuil indeed is by a metaphor called a ser∣pent in many places of holy scripture. But doth it therefore follow▪ that in this place was no•…•…e but hee? The storye doth plainely euince that he couering his practise by the beaste and vsing him for his instrument, hath euer after the same name giuen vnto him.

And for learned interpretors of that Historie, as Maister Clauine and others, what iugling is it to alleage some of their sayings contrarie vnto their meanings, which do very well accorde with this, that the Deuill spake out of a beast indeede. It is thought a poore Snake shoulde not haue the cursse layde vppon him, for how coulde hee be guilty of anye sinne? This cannot stande with the iustice of GOD. I aunswere that Maister Painter hath deceaued many which take it to be a Snake, and touching this beaste the serpent, it standeth with the iustice of God that he should be accursed aboue euery beast. He is an ignoraunt man that knoweth not that euery beast, and the very earth it selfe had a cursse laide vpon them for mans sinne, they did not offend but were made for mans sake.

Then if God in iustice layde a cursse vppon them, as to saye it were not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 iustice because they did not sinne were blasphemie▪ how shoulde it seeeme straunge that God should cursse the Serpent aboue euery beaste, who was the instru∣ment of mans fall, though hee knewe not what hee did? But to let those goe, this is the chiefe and principall, for the matter which I haue vndertaken, to shewe euen by the very storye that there was not onely the Deuill, but also a very corporall beaste. If this question bee demaunded, did Eua knowe there was anye Deuill, or anye wicked re∣probate Angels. What man of knowledge will say that she did? She did not as yet knowe good and euill. She knewe not the authour of euill. When the Lorde sayde

the Lord said vnto hir, What is this which thou hast done? she answereth by and by, The serpent deceiued me. Shee saw there was one which had deceiued hir, shee nameth him a serpent, whence had she that name for the deuill whome shee had not imagined to hee? It is plaine that she speaketh of a thing which had before this receiued his name.

It is yet more euident by that she sayth, yonder serpent, or that serpent, for she not•…•…th him out as pointing to a thing visible: for she vseth the demonstratiue particle He in the Hebrew language, which seuereth him from other. Anie man of a sound mind maye easilie see that Eua nameth and pointeth at a visible beast, which was nombred among the Beastes of the fielde. The cursse is directed to both vnder one, because they were ioyned in one touching the worke, some thing in it cannot belong to the Serpent, as the vic∣tory by Christ▪ Likewise no allegorie can well mollifie some speeches to apply them vnto a spirite, as to goe vp∣pon his brest, to eate dust all the daies of his life, then we see that Deuils can speake. And the Deuill did speake out of a man Act. 19. for the holy ghost doth affirme it.* 1.4

There were saith Sainct Luke, certaine of the runna∣gate Iewes, which were exorcistes that tooke vppon them to name ouer those that had euill Spirites, the name of the Lorde Iesus, saying, wee adiure you by Iesus whome Paule preacheth. And they were certaine sonnes of Sceua a chiefe Prieste a Iewe, which did this thing, the euill spirite answered and said, Iesus I knowe, Paule I knowe, but who are ye? the man in whom the euill spirit was, ran vpon them and did preuaile against them. We see it flatly said, the euill spirit, and not the man said, Iesus I knowe, Paule I knowe, &c. Why should we doubt then, but that deuils, when God doth permit can speake? I knowe not what colour of reason can be alleged against this, vnlesse some will say it was long ago: let it bee shewed that such a thing hath beene of later times. There might be, ye see, if God permit, and no doubt

there haue bene many at all times: though there haue beene also & are many notorious counterfeits▪ •…•…f deuils can speake, yet there is a reason made by some, which boasteth it selfe to be vnanswerable, that spirits can take no visible shape. It is gathered from the words of Christ vnto Thomas, thou doest* 1.5 belieue because thou hast seene Thomas, he saith not because thou hast felte. I aunswere that as Thomas woulde not trust his sight, but would haue it confirmed by feeling, which was graunted him: so Christe putteth the one sence, namely the sight, for both sight and feeling, or for a sight confirmed by •…•…ee ling, this is proued by Christs owne wordes in Luke 24. For* 1.6 he saith handle me and see: when they were afraid & thought it had bene a spirite▪ why doth he not say handle and feele? I conclude therefore that it is a thing moste certaine by the word of God, that Deuils can both speake, and take a visible shape vpon them, when God doth permitte.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Exod. 8.
• * 1.2

  Act. 16.
• * 1.3

  Gen. 3.
• * 1.4

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 19.
• * 1.5

  Iohn 20.
• * 1.6

  Luke 24.