Iustine the Martir, who is one of the most auncient Fathers, reasoning against Trypho a Iewe, writeth in his Colloquio, that the couetous Sorceresse at Saules commaundement raysed vp Samuels soule. And no man shoulde maruaile héereat, sith that the selfesame Author doeth by and by adde, that he is of this iudgement, that all the soules of Prophettes and iust menne are subiect vnto suche power as a man may in verie déed beléeue, to haue bene on this gréedie and subtile Witche. But this none of the Fathers will graunt him. Other Gréeke writers also, whiche in their tender yeares applied theyr mindes to Philosophie, and not to the studie of holy Scriptures, and afterwardes were conuerted to Christianitie, doo sette foorthe in their writings certaine opinions which are not agréeable to the word of God. Wherefore it néede not séeme a straunge thing to any manne, that Iustine the Martire in some pointes had his errors.
The same Authour in Responsionibus ad Orthodoxos, question 52. mainteineth the contrary assertion. For, saith he, whatsoeuer things were done by that hungry Witche, were indéede the workes of the Diuell, who did so dazle the eyes of such as beheld him, that it séemed vnto them, they sawe Samuel himselfe, when in verie déede hée was not there. But the truth of his words procéeded from God, who gaue the diuel power to appeare vnto the Sorceresse, and to declare vnto her, that which should afterwards come to passe. &c.
If any man obiect that this woorke is not rightly ascribed vnto Iustine, (for so muche as hée doth make mention of Origen, and Ireneus the Martire, whereas notwithstanding hee him selfe was martyred before them. And farther, speaketh of the Manichees, who were in their ruffe long after this time. Hereunto we answere, that if this booke were not written by Iustine, yet (as may appeare) some other learned Clarke wrote that worke, whose authoritie might carry away as great credit as Iustines, sith that the same doth fully agrée with holie scripture. Furthermore we may set against Iustine, other holy Fathers, as Tertullian and Chrysostome, of whom we haue before spoken, who haue by holy scripture instructed vs, that it was not Samuell indéede whiche appeared vnto Gregorius. Saule. We will hereafter say somewhat of Gregorie, who no doubt was a learned and godly Father, but yet too simple and light of beléefe.
And the Fathers themselues deny, that a man should subscribe vnto their opinion in ought that they doo maintaine and auouche without the warrant of Gods word. The Popes out of Augustine written in their Decrées, Quest. 9. ca. Noli, that a man should credit none of the Fathers except he proued his saying out of holy Scriptures. But in these dayes many cull nothing out of their bookes but errours, and whatsoeuer they maintaine by good testimony of the holy scriptures, that they reiect and disanull: in which point they do fitly resemble those children, who only in things wicked and euil, imitate their good parents: for good men also haue their faultes.
CHAP. IX.
Whether the Diuell haue power to appeare vnder the
shape of a faithfull man?
Ut thou doest demand whether the Diuill can represent the likenesse of some faithfull man deceased? Hereof we néed 2. Cor. 11. not doubt at all. For in the 2. Cor. 11. S. Paul witnesseth, that sathan transformeth himselfe into the shape & fashion of an Angell of light. Sathan by nature is a spirit, and is therefore tearmed an Angel, because God vseth to send him to bring that thing to passe which he thinketh best. So in 2. Reg. 22. the second of Kings .22. Chapter, an euil angell was sent foorth to Ahabs destruction, to be a lying spirit in the mouth of 400. false prophets. This was an angell of errour and darkenesse: who yet in outwarde shewe could resemble a good Angell, that he might so guide the counsell of Baalls worshippers, who no doubt vaunted themselues, as if they had bene gathered togither by Gods holy spirit. If sathan be then so skilfull, can he not counterfait and faine himselfe to be some holy man, by resembling his words, voyce, iesture, and such other things?