Part II: introduction, and the proof of apparitions, spirits and witches from Scripture, part 2 of 4

Proof of Apparitions, Spirits, and Witches from Holy-Scripture.

SECT. I. The Authours purpose of proving Apparitions and Witchcraft, to such as believe Scripture, as first from the Apparition of Angels.

ANd having thus prepared my way, I come to prove that there are Witches against both the sorts that deny their Existence, viz. Those that believe the Scriptures, and the Wits or Witlings that will not admit their Testimony. To the first I shall prove the being of Witches by plain Evidence taken from the Divine Oracles, and to the other, and indeed to both, I shall evince the same by as full and clear Testimonies, as matter of fact is capable of, and then answer the opposite Objections, and those particularly of the three late confident Exploders of Witchcraft; * Mr. Webster, Mr. Wagstaffe, and the Authour of the Doctrine of Devils.

The Proof I intend shall be of these two things, viz. That Spirits have sensibly transacted with Men, and that some have been in such Leagues with them, as to be enabled thereby to do wonders.

These sensible Transactions of Spirits with Men, are evident from Apparitions and Possessions. The Apparition of Angels, their discourses and predictions, sensible converses with Men and Women are frequently recorded in the Scripture. An Angel appeared to Hagar, Gen. 16. Three Angels in the shape of Men appeared to Abraham, Gen. 18. Two to Lot in the same likeness, Gen. 19. An Angel called to Hagar, Gen. 21. 17. and so did one to Abraham, Gen. 22. An Angel spake to and conversed with Jacob in a Dream, Gen. 31. One of the same appeared to Moses in the Bush, Exod. 3. An Angel went before the Camp of Israel, Exod. 14. An Angel met Balaam in the way, Numb. 22. An Angel spake to all the People of Israel, Judges 2. An Angel appeared to Gideon, Judges 6. and to the Wife of Manoah, Judges 13. An Angel destroyed the People, 2 Sam. 24. An Angel appeared to Eliab, 1 Kings 19. An Angel smote in the Camp of the Assyrians 184000. 2 Kings 35. An Angel stood by the Threshing-floor of Ornan, 1 Chron. 21. 15. An Angel talked with Zachariah the Prophet, Zach. 1.

An Angel appeared to the two Mary's at our Lords Sepulchre, Matth. 28. An Angel foretold the Birth of John Baptist to Zachariah the Priest, Luke 1. Gabriel was sent to the Holy Virgin, Luke 1. 26. An Angel appeared to the Shepherds, Luke 2. An Angel opened the Prison Door to Peter and the rest, Acts 5. I might accumulate many more instances, but these are enough. And many circumstances of sensible Converse belong to most of them, which may be read at large in the respective Chapters. And since the Intercourses of Angels were so frequent in former days, why should we be averse to the belief that Spirits sometimes transact with Men now?

ADVERTISEMENT.

* I find amongst Mr. Glanvil's Papers, the first Lineaments or Strokes of an Answer to Mr. Wagstaffe, and to the Authour of the Doctrine of Devils, but more fully to Mr. Webster, at least Seventeen Sheets where he answers solidly and substantially where I can read his Hand, but it reaches but to the Sixth Chapter. And in truth he has laid about him so well in these Sheets that are published, that those may well seem the less necessary.

SECT. II. The Evasions his Adversaries use to escape the force of these Proofs of Scripture from the Apparition of Angels, with the Authours Answer.

THere are several Evasions, by which some endeavour to escape these Texts; as, First the Sadducees of old, and Familists of later days, who hold, to wit, these, that the Angels we read of, were but Divine Graces, the other that they were Divine Phantasmes created to serve a present occasion, which ceased to be as soon as they disappeared. One would think that none that ever had read the Scriptures, should entertain such a conceit as this, that is so contrary to the account they every where give of those celestial Creatures. But there is nothing so absurd, but some Men will embrace to support their Opinions.

Let us consider a little how differently from this vain Fancy the Scripture describes them. They are called Spirits, an Attribute given to God himself the prime Subsistence, who is by way of eminence called the Father of Spirits, not of Phantasmes. And Spirit imports as much Substance as Body, though without gross bulk. We read of Elect Angels, and the Angels that stand before the Throne of God continually, and that always behold the Face of God. Of the Faln Angels that kept not their first Station, that are held in the Chains of Darkness; and of everlasting Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels against the Judgment of the great Day. Both had their Order of Superiority and Inseriority, Michael and his Angels, the Dragon and his Angels. We are made little lower than the Angels. In Heaven we shall be as the Angels of God. Of the Day of Judgment knoweth no Man, no not the Angels. Let all the Angels of God Worship him.

Which Descriptions of the Nature, Order, Condition, Attributes of Angels, and infinite more such up and down the Scriptures, are not applicable to Phantasms, but demonstratively prove that the Angels of whose Apparitions we hear so frequently there, were real permanent subsistences, and not mere Phantasms and Shadows.

SECT. III. That the Angels that are said to have appeared in Scripture were not Men-Messengers, but Inhabitants of the Invisible World; And whether they ate and drank or no.

BUt were not those Angels that so appeared, special Prophets, Divine Messengers, sometimes in Scripture confessedly called Angels? They did eat and drink with Abraham, and with Lot, by which it should seem that they were real Men. But whoever shall look over the Instances alledged of the Apparition of Angels, and read them in all the Circumstances of the Text, will plainly see that they could not be Men.

Such could not be the Angel that spake to Abraham and Hagar out of Heaven, that conversed with Jacob in a Dream, that appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, that appeared to Manoah, and ascended, in his and his Wife's presence, in the slame of the Sacrifice, that went before the Camp of Israel, that stood before Balaam in the way unseen by him, that smote the Army of the Assyrians, that appeared to Zacharias in the Temple, and to the Mary's at the Sepulchre. These must be a sort of Beings superiour to Mankind, Angels in the proper sense, who are sometimes in Scripture called Men, because they appear in our likeness.

But whether these do receive refection or sustinence in their own World and State or not, I will not dispute. It is most probable, and it hath been the Doctrine both of Fathers and Philosophers, that they are vitally united to AEtherial and Heavenly Bodies, which possibly may need recruits some such way, and so Angels Food may be more than a Metaphor. But certainly they cannot eat after our manner, nor feed on our gross Dyet, except in appearance only. They may make shew of doing it (as the Angel Raphael told Tobit that he did, Tob. 12. 19. All these days I did appear unto you, but I did neither eat nor drink, but you did see a Vision) but really they do it not. So that when Abraham's and Lot's Angels are said to eat and drink with them, the Scripture speaks as to them it seemed. And so the Jerusalem Targum reads, and they seemed as if they did eat and drink. And we may suppose that Men's Conceptions of Angels were not very refined in those days, nor could they have borne their sensible and free Converses, if they had look't on them as Creatures of a Nature so distant from their own.

And therefore afterward, when they were better understood, those to whom they appeared were struck with great dread and amazement, and thought that they should presently dye. Nor do we, as I remember, read any more of the Angels eating or drinking after what seemed to Abraham and Lot. Indeed Manoah invited the Angel to eat, Judg. 13. 15. but it was before he knew he was an Angel, and it is set down in excuse of the offer, v. 16. For Manoah knew not that he was an Angel of the Lord, implying that the invitation had been absurd if he had known it.

I have said this in answer to the objection, though the main cause is not concerned. For though I should grant that Abraham's and Lot's Angels were Men, yet the other instances in which that could not be said or supposed, are more than enough to carry my point, That real Angels, Inhabitants of the Invisible World, did sometimes sensibly appear.

SECT. IV. That Angels are still Ministring Spirits, as well as of old.

BUt it will be said, when they did appear, it was upon Divine Errands, and God sent them to serve the ends of his Government and Providence; which I grant. And God Almighty hath the same ends to serve still, he governs the World now, and his Providence is as watchful as ever, and the Angels are the chief Ministers of that Providence, and Ministring Spirits for our good. The Gospel was ushered in by the Apparition of Angels, and many things done by them in the carrying of it on. And why we should think they may not be sent, and should not appear on occasion now, I do not see. But this is more than I need say yet, being for the first step only to shew, that Spirits have transacted with Men.

SECT. V. Proofs from the Apparitions of Evil Spirits, recorded in Scripture.

THose I have mentioned hitherto, have been good and benign Spirits, but evil Spirits have also appeared, and sensibly had to do with Mankind. My first instance of this is one of the first businesses that was in the World, the Temptation of Eve by the Devil in the Serpent. An Argument which those that adhere to the Letter of those three first Chapters cannot avoid. Evil Angels were sent among the AEgyptians, Psalm 78. 49. and those passed through and smote the Land. But the Destroyers, viz. the Evil Angels were not permitted to come into the Israelites Houses, Exod. 12. 23. When God asked Sathan whence he came, Job 1. 7. he answered, from going to and fro in the Earth. By Divine permission he raised the great Wind that blew down the House upon Jobs Children, v. 19. and smote his Body all over with Boyls, Job 2. 7. He tempted our Saviour in an external sensible way, carrying him from place to place, and urging the Son of God to worship him, Matth. 4. But more of this will appear by considering the second head proposed, viz. Possession of Evil Spirits.

SECT. VI. Proofs from Possession of Evil Spirits, and that they were not Diseases, as the Witch-Advocates would have them.

THat such Possessions have been, we find frequently and plainly delivered in the History of the Gospel, and so often, that I shall not need to recite particulars. The Evasion that the Witch-Advocates have for this, is, that the Devils and unclean Spirits spoken of in those places, which our Saviour is said to have cast out, were strange and uncommon Diseases, which the Jews thought to be Devils, and Christ who came not to teach Men Philosophy, complyed with their deceived apprehension, and the Evangelists speak according to their conceit in this matter. But if this Answer must pass, then in the first place,

Farewel all Scripture, it may be made to say what we please; and if when the Scripture speaks in a plain History of un[…]lean Spirits and Devils, we may understand Diseases by it, then what we read of good Angels may be Graces and Vertues, and what we read of Christ himself, may all be interpreted of the Christ within, and so all the Scripture, and all Religion shall signify what any Man thinks fit.

Secondly, The cure of Diseases is mentioned in many of the Texts, distinctly from the casting out of Devils. Thus Matth. 10. 1. He gave the Disciples Power against unclean Spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sicknesses, and all manner of Diseases. This was a different Power from the former, and all manner of Sicknesses and Diseases implies the uncommon and extraordinary, which our Sadducees would have the Devils to be, viz. Diseases, as well as the ordinary and usual ones are. So Luke 6. 18. He healed them of their Diseases, and those that were vexed with unclean Spirits, were brought to him, and he healed them likewise. And most plainly, Matth. 4. 24. And they brought unto him all sick people, that were taken with divers Diseases and Torments, and those that were possessed with Devils, and those that were Lunatick, and those that had the Palsie, and he healed them. The Mad-men, and those that had the Falling-Sickness, the Distempers which the Witch-Advocates make Devils of, are here mentioned apart, and as distinct from those Devils our Saviour cast out.

Thirdly, Many things are attributed to those Devils that were cast out, which are not applicable to Diseases. The Devils in the Possessed among the Gergasens, Matth. 8. 16. besought Christ, saying, If thou cast us out, sufser us to go away into the Herd of Swine, and he gave them leave. Mark 5. 8. Sure the Diseases did not beseech him; But perhaps the Men did. Had they a mind to go into the Swine? and did they enter into them? A sort of Possession this, that was never heard of, a Beast possest with a Man. But St. Luke tells us, they were the Devils that went out of the Men, and entered into the Swine, Luke 8. 33. The Men did not go out of themselves, and therefore, if what went out was not the Disease, it was really the D[…]vil or unclean Spirit.

So Luke 4. 33. In the Synagogue there was a Man that had a Spirit of an unclean Devil, and cryed out with a loud Voice, saying, Let us alone, &c. Well, but might not this be the Man himself that cryed out so? Therefore read a little on, v. 35. And Jesus rebuked him, viz. him that spake, saying to the same still, Hold thy peace and come out of him. Which must be another Person distinct srom the Man himself, and who was that? It follows, And when the Devil had thrown him in the midst, he came cut of him, the same Devil that spake; that our Saviour rebuked, and commanded to come out, which could be no other than a real Evil Spirit.

And that those ejected Devils were not Diseases appears further, Matth. 12. v. 22. There was brought unto him, one possessed with a Devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch (to wit, the consequence of the ejecting the Devil was) that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. The Pharisees, v. 24. impute this casting out Devils to a confederacy with Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils; our Saviour there argues, that then Sathan should be divided against himself: namely, Beelzebub the chief against the Inferiour Devils that he cast out; who are of his Kingdom, and doing the work of it: For there it follows, that his Kingdom could not stand, v. 26. These things will be hardly applyed to Diseases. And,

Fourthly and lastly, If the Evangelist should call Diseases Devils, and unclean Spirits, and speak of casting out Devils in an History, with all the plainness and expresness of Words, and Phrase, and Circumstance, that such an action could be described by, and yet mean nothing of it, what would this suggest, but that they falsly ascribed to Christ wonders that he never did, and consequently that they were Lyars and Deceivers, and vain Impostours? For clear it is, that whoever shall read those passages in the Gospel without a prepossest Opinion, will be led into this belief by them, that our Saviour did really cast Devils out of Persons possest. And if there be really no such thing as Possession by evil Spirits, but only Diseases by the ignorant and credulous people taken for such, then the History imposeth on us, and leads Men into a perswasion of things done by the Power of Christ that never were. And what execution this will do upon the truth, and credit of the whole History, is very easie to understand.

SECT. VII. That the Witch-Advocates cannot elude Scripture-Testimony of Possession by Evil Spirits, by saying it speaks according to the received Opinions of Men.

I But the Scripture doth, we know, speak often according to the received Opinions of Men, though they are errours, which it is not concerned to rectify, when they concern no Morality or Religion.

But first, The Doctrine of Spirits and Devils was not the received Opinion of all the Jews: The Sadducees a considerable Sect were of another mind. So that the Stories of ejecting such, must look to them as Impostures. And the Scriptures were not written only for the Jews, and for that particular time alone, but for all Places and all Ages. Most of which have no such use of calling Diseases Devils, and among them the History must either convey a false Opinion, or lose the Reputation of its Truth.

Secondly, Though the Scripture doth not vary from the common forms of Speech, where they are grounded upon harmless and lesser mistakes, yet when such are great and dangerous, prejudicial to the Glory of God, and Interest of Religion, it is then much concerned to reform and rectify such errours. And according to the Belief of the Witch-Advocates, the Doctrine of Possessions is highly such. For it leads to the Opinion of Witchcraft, which they make such a Dismal and Tragical Error, Blasphemy, an abominably Idolatrous, yea an Atheistical Doctrine, the grand Apostasie, the greatest that ever was or can be, that which cuts off Christs Head, and Un-Gods him, renounceth Christ and God, and owns the Devil, and makes him equal to them, &c. As the Authour of the Grand Apostasie raves.

And Mr. Webster saith little less of this Opinion in his Preface, viz. That it tends to advance Superstition and Popery, is derogatory to the Wisdom, Justice and Providence of the Almighty, tending to cry up the Power of the Kingdom of darkness, to question the verity of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith, concerning the Resurrection of Christ, and generally tends to the obstructing of Godliness and Piety.

And Mr. Wagstaffe loads it with as dreadful imputations in his Preface; As that it doth necessarily infer plurality of Gods by attributing Omnipotent effects to more than one, and that it supposeth many Omnipotents, and many Omniscients. If any thing of this be so, certainly our Saviours inspired Historians would not have connived at, much less would they have spoken in the Phrase, that supposeth and encourageth a common Error, that leads to such an horrid Opinion.

SECT. VIII. An Answer to an Objection from Christs n[…] mentioning his casting out Devils to John's Disciples, amongst other Miracles.

BUt saith the Authour of the Grand Apestasie, p. 34. our Saviour himself in his Answer to the Disciples of John the Baptist, Luke 7. doth not pretend to the casting out Devils, but only the cure of Diseases, and raising the Dead. To which I say, First, we may not argue negatively from Scripture in such matters, and certainly we ought not to argue from silence in one place, against plain assirmations in many.

Secondly, Our Saviour answers in reference to the things he was then doing, when the Disciples of John came to him, v. 21. And in that same hour he cured many of their Infirmities and Plagues. Evil Spirits, it must be confessed, are also mentioned. Some of those Diseases it is like were occasioned by Evil Spirits, as (Ma[…]th. 12. 22.) the blindness and dumbness of th[…] possessed person there was. And then the […]jection of the Evil Spirit is implyed, when the Disease is said to be Cured.

Thirdly, The business of John's Disciples was to enquire whether he was the Messiah, and it was fit our Saviour in his Answer should give such proofs of his being so, as were plain and palpable. Go your way, saith he, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard, Luke 7. 22. They had heard him Preach the Gospel it is like, and had seen him Cure Diseases. These things were plain and sensible, and could admit of no dispute or doubt. But whether the Distempers Christ then healed, were inflicted by Evil Spirits, and whether those were cast out in the Cure, did not plainly appear at that time. Our Saviour therefore did not bid them mention that Instance to their Master John, because they could not testify it on their own knowledge, as they could the things themselves saw and heard.

SECT. IX. An Answer to two more Objections; the one, that St. John mentions no casting out Devils in his Gospel; the other, that to have a Devil, and to be mad are Synonyma's.

BUt the passionate Witch-Advocate goes on. St. John the Evangelist, who especially sets himself upon the proof of the Godhead of Christ, hints nothing of his ejecting Devils. Which one would think should be no proof, since the other three do; and St. John chiesly supplyed what they omitted. And since this Evangelist so particularly sets himself upon the proof of Christs Divinity, he mentions no Miracles, which were the proof, but such as were sensible and indisputable. And our Authour himself after p. 41. saith, That the cure of Diseases was more for Christs Honour, and the proof of his Godhead, than the casting out Devils could have been. For possibly, saith he, in that, there might have been some probable grounds of the Pharisees Blasphemy, that he cast out Devils by Beclzebub.

So that he answers and contradicts himself at once: For p. 34. he saith, It had been a great oversight in St. John to neglect such an Argument. If such a thing had ever been, this would have proved him to have been God indeed, and his Power paramount above all Principalities and Powers, &c. p. 35. And yet now curing Diseases proves it better, and the casting out Devils will scarce do it at all, since it might, adds he, be in some sort credible, that he did it by favour, connivance, compliance, complotment, which is upon the Borders of the highest Blasphemy.

Again it is alledged by this Writer, that to have a Devil, and to be mad, seem to be Synonyma's in Scripture, p. 35. I answer, Possession begot a certain [non-Latin script] furor, and madness; and therefore when any were extravagant, the Jews said in common Speech, that they had a Devil, as we do, The Devil is in you, that is, you act unreasonably and madly. But as we do not mean by this Metaphorical Possession to exclude the belief of a real, so neither did they. Yea, the very Phrase, he hath a Devil, or the Devil is in him, applyed to those that act furiously and unadvisedly, doth imply that there is such a real thing as Diabolical Possession, to which madness and extream folly are resembled.

See then how the Patrons of Witches argue, The Jews sometimes used the having a Devil Metaphorically; therefore there are no other Possessions, or therefore all those passages of Scripture, in which they are literally and plainly related, intend no other. Indeed, if we argued from meer words and expressions of having Devils, and casting out Devils, there would be somewhat of more colour in our Adversaries reasoning. But since we inferr chiefly from plain circumstances of History and Fact, there is no force at all in it.

SECT. X. The Ignorance of the Authour of The Grand Apostasie, in his interpreting the Word [non-Latin script].

BUt what doth this Writer mean, when he tells us [non-Latin script] can scarce signify any thing else properly, but an unusual affliction from God, such as madness; when all Men and Boys know that Substantively it is the same with [non-Latin script] Daemon, taken already in Scripture in an ill sense for an impure Spirit. Adjectively it signifies sometimes Divinum quid, but so it is not understood in the places we dispute about, Luke 4. 35. When the Devil had thrown him, the possessed Man, in the midst, he came out of him, the word is, [non-Latin script]. The same v. 33. is called [non-Latin script]. By which & the latter circumstances of the History, it plainly appears that [non-Latin script], is to be understood Substantively for a Person, viz. an Evil Spirit. So in the Story of the Devils entering into the Herd of Swine, Luke 8. 33. the word we Translate Devils is [non-Latin script], called v. 29. [non-Latin script], and the same Matth. 8. 29. [non-Latin script]. Besides the force of which words, I have shewn that the Story also determines them to a Substantive and Personal meaning.

But the Authour saith, That [non-Latin script] can hardly with propriety signify any thing else but an extraordinary affliction from God, because of its derivation from [non-Latin script], p. 37. One would wonder at the confidence of these Men, especially in their pretended Criticisms, by which they would impose what sense upon words they please. [non-Latin script] it is notoriously known signifies Daemon, taken often in the ill sense, and so particularly in the place newly mentioned, deriving from [non-Latin script] scio, which degenerates here, as in Saga, Witch, Wizzard and the like, and what then should this Authour by this mean?

SECT. XI. Whether there were no feats performed by the Demoniacks in the Gospels, but what Mad-men might perform.

IT is further Objected by this W[…]iter, that there are no Feats Recorded of those supposed Demoniacks, but what Mad-men could perform and often do. In which, he considered not the Spirits in the Possest, in the Countrey of the Gergasens, Matth. 8. 29. St. Mark and St. Luke write Ga[…]arens, the Countries lye near together. Jos[…]phus reckons Gadara among the Gre[…]ian Cities which Pompey took from the Jews, and according to him the people were mostly Syrians.

In this Country where our Saviour had not been before, nor after, that we read, two possest with Devils, who had lived among the Tombs, out of the Conversation of Mankind met him, and presently cryed out; What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God, art thou come to torment us before the time? Was there nothing now beyond the rate of ordinary Mad-men in this? How did they, who lived in such a dismal solitude among the Tombs, in a place where no Man passed, come to know this was Jesus, who never had been thereabout before, as far as we can hear? Or how came those Mad-men to know, and utter such a great truth, which our Saviour did not presently publish, That he was the Son of God? Did any come near to whisper this in their Ear? or was this a raving fancy only? St. Mark writes (who speaks but of a single Demoniack) that when he saw Jesus afar off, he came and worshipped him. He knew him presently, and understood his true condition before most of the Jews about him; and even some of his own Disciples did. Could a meer Mad-man have done so? But further they expected torment and from him, in the time to come, though they looked not for it so soon. Art thou come to torment us before the time? How applicable is this to the condition of Evil Spirits and their expectations?

We have a like acknowledgement of our Saviour from another unclean Spirit, Mark 1. 24. I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And our Saviour in what he saith, in answer plainly, implies it wa[…] the Evil Spirit, not the Mad-man that spake, or at least caused the confession. Hold thy peace, and come out of him, v. 25. And that the Demoniacks did things beyond the force of meer Mad-men is further sufficiently declared in the History, Mark 5. No Man could bind him, no not with Chains; because he had been often bound with Fetters and Chains, and the Chains had been pluckt in sunder by him. I would fain know, whether this be not beyond the force of meer natural madness?

ADVERTISEMENT.

Hitherto the Paper was the same, and the Hand the same, and so far of the Copy transcribed. Afterward the Hand alters, and is Mr. Glanvil's own Hand, but with an Hiatus of above half a Sheet of unwrit Paper between, but the Number of the Pages is continued. Something there was to intervene, to make a more full Connexion; but yet what follows, is of the same suit, and produced to prove out of Scripture the Negotiation of Evil Spirits with their Clients.