Part 22

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

[Sidenote: John 8. 44.]

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

[Sidenote: 2 Cor. 11. 3.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Exod. 4. 3.]

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

[Sidenote: _Greg. in Moràl._]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 1._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 4._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 5._]

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

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 1._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 2._]

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 3._]

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

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

[Sidenote: _Reas. 4._]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 2 Cor. 2. 11.]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Ephes. 2. 2.]

[Sidenote: 2 Tim. 3. 8.]

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

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

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

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

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

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

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