SINCE your design of giving Copies of our Papers (if not to the publick at least) out of your hands, I find myself obliged to make a Reply to your Answer, lest silence should be construed an Assent to the positions whereby (I think) truth would be scandaliz'd. I remember that some have taught that it is not certain there is any such thing really in being as matter; because the Ideas which we have of our own, and all other bodies, may be caused to arise in us by God, without the real existence of the objects they represent. But this opinion is not only absurd and false, but likewise Atheistical, destroying the veracity of the Almighty, whom it asserts to have determined us by a fatal necessity to believe things to be, which are not; and I wonder that you should allude unto it, because that Angels have appeared in a Dream, in a vision; for we dream also of Trees, Birds, &c. are there therefore no such things in nature, because we sometimes Dream to see and hear them, when we are asleep? St. Paul in his Vision was so far from believing the Objects that were represented to him, to come by the intermedium of his Senses, that he declares, he [84] does not know whether he was in the body, or out of the body; therefore the Instance is in no wise proper. For Abraham and the B. Virgin did see and hear; and if there were not such things really, as were represented to them by their Senses, they were deluded, by being made to believe they saw and heard what was not. There is none who denieth God causing thoughts to arise in Mens minds: but thence to infer he maketh Objects which are not, by forming their Ideas in our minds, to appear to us through the Ministry of our Senses as though they were, is a piece not only of vain, but very dangerous Philosophy. It is true, the good Angels will not appear without the appointment of God, they will not do any one Action, but according to the laws he has prescribed to them. But you say they cannot (which does not follow from your premises) supposing their not appearing to proceed from the defect of their power, and not the rectitude of their will, which fallacy has deceived you into a third Conclusion. For the fallen Angels are not so held under Chains of darkness; but that they can and do go to [and] fro on the earth seeking whom they may devour. Before their fall they could have appeared if sent, and would not then do any thing without a Divine Command But now they have rebell'd against God, and do all they can to despise him, therefore their not appearing now (if it were true they never did, they never shall appear) must proceed from a restraint they are under, which is accidental, not Essential to their nature; so that the true Conclusion is, the fallen Angels, while they are under forcible restraint from God to the contrary cannot appear. But what this (being cleared from the Ambiguity you express it in) maketh to the purpose I know not, unless God had promised for a determinate time to detain them under this restraint. I do not understand what you intend by the dead being raised by Holy Men; the most natural inference is, that in imitation of them wicked men by their Inchantments calling on a Dæmon to appear in the shape of the dead, will pretend that they also can raise the dead. The Romanists are much obliged to you for making Transubstantiation (so much contended for by them) to be of as old a date as the appearance of Devils, and that the one implieth no more contradiction than the other: If so we do well to think seriously whether we are not guilty of great sin in separating from them; for certainly whatever private Mens Notions in this Age may be, yet it is matter of great moment, that all Antiquity (the Saducees the Elder Brethren of our Hobbists[98] excepted) hath believed the appearance of Evil Spirits and their Illusions. I should be too officious if I offered to explain, how matter, real matter may fall under the cognisance of one of our senses, and not the rest. It is for you to shew the impossibility thereof, if you will build any thing upon your Assertion, to prove which your first Argument is (it seems to me) a Chimera, which [85] is not enough, when there are many to whom it seems to be a truth: Your second is very dangerous, and highly derogatory of the honour of God, between whom and the Devil you make comparison more than once as the power of the Almighty must not be confined to be less than the Devils. And again, to deny these three last were to make the Devil an Independent Power and consequently a God. These expressions (which cannot but be very pleasing to the Devil, who vainly boasts himself to be a Being without dependance) are altogether groundless, and very unmeet to proceed from a Christian: Consider what you are a doing, to establish a Doctrine (the contrary whereof the greatest part of mankind does believe) you run upon such precipices, as if you are mistaken, and that is not impossible, must totally destroy all Religion, Natural and Revealed; for suppose it were generally believed according to you, that the Devil cannot appear, because if he could he must be a God, independent, an unconquer'd enemy, and he doth appear to us as we hear he hath to multitudes, both of the past and present ages: In such a case what remains for us to do; but to fall down and worship him. Upon the head of possession, you have recourse to that instance of Samson, who was impowered by God, to the doing of things beyond the Natural strength of common Men, and thence you say, we may least learn the Nature of Possession by evil Spirits, this comparison is indeed very odious, and I had rather think you have fallen into it unawares; for what greater Blasphemy than that God and the Devil do act the bodies, which the one and the other do possess in the same manner; if the hypothesis I laid down had not pleased you, yet you ought not (for fear of being deceiv'd by vain Philosophy, to have run so horrible an extream, as to assimulate God's manner of working to the Devils, which necessarily implies, that either their Powers are equal, or at least that they do not differ in kind but in degree only; than which nothing can be more impious or absurd; for the most possibly perfect Creature, is infinitely distant from the Creator, and there can be no Comparison between them. On the head of Witchcraft, you acknowledge the Witch has not his Wonder-working Power from God; but then you say, the Devil has no such power to give; for if he had, he must be——This way of reasoning as I noted before, is very dangerous, and I think ought not to be used; besides there is a great fallacy in your Dilemma; which because I perceive, you lay the whole weight of the matter upon it, I will evince unto you. The Devil tho superlatively Arrogant and Proud, nevertheless depends on the first cause for his being, and all his Powers, without whose Influx he or any other Creature cannot subsist a moment, but must either return to their primitive Nothing, or be continually preserved by the same Power, by the which they were at first produced; therefore the [86] Beings and Powers of all Creatures (because they immediately flow from God) are good, and consequently the simple Actions, as they proceed from those Powers, are in their own nature likewise good, the Evil proceeding only from the Rebellious will of the Creature, wherefore 'tis no Paradox, but a certain truth, that the same action in respect to the first cause is good, but in respect of the second is Evil; for instance, the act of Copulation is in itself good, instituted by God, and may be willed and desired by the Soul, which sinneth not for exerting the simple act; but for exerting it contrary to the Laws prescribe'd by God: as in Wedlock and Adultery there is the same special natural Action, which consider'd simply, as flowing from a Power given to Man by God is certainly good; but considered with relation to the rebellious will of the Adulterer (who lieth with his Neighbours Wife, whom he is forbad to touch) is a very great Evil. We may say the same of all humane Actions, the Executioner and the Murtherer do the same natural Act of striking and killing: The difference consists in the rectitude of the ones and depravation of the others will. These things premised, what more reason have we to conclude that the Devil (because he shews signs and wonders to gain belief to lyes, which is very contrary to the will of God) must be therefore an Independent Power; than that the Adulterer, the Murtherer, or any other sinner (because their Actions being Evil, of which God cannot be the cause) must be Independent beings: The deceit of the last is very palpable, and I doubt not you will readily acknowledge it, for it is obvious from what has been said to the meanest Capacity, to distinguish between the Action itself, which is good, and flows from God, and the Circumstances of the Action, the choice whereof proceeds from the Iniquity of the Will, wherein doth solely consist the Sin; the parallel is so exact, that I cannot see the least shadow of reason, why we ought not in like manner to distinguish whatever effect is produced by the Devil; to whom (as to Man) God having given Powers, and a Will to Rule them Powers, is truly and properly the cause of all the Actions (in a Natural, but not Moral Sense) that flow from the Powers he has given. Therefore the Wonder-working Power of the Devil, and the effects thereof, considered as Acts of one of God's Creatures, are not Evil but Good; the using that Power (which proceeds from the Rebellion of Satan) to bear testimony to a lye, is that one, which constitutes the Evil thereof.
And now I have done with your Argument, wherein you have indeed shewn great skill and dexterity in turning to your Advantage, what being fairly stated makes against you, as the Appearance of Angels, &c. observing nicely the rules of Art, and particularly that grand one of concealing, nay dissembling the same Art, as when you quote that Scripture [87] concerning vain Philosophy (of which tho altogether foreign from the matter in hand yet) you intend to serve yourself with the Unthinking, who measure the Sense of words by their Jingle, not knowing how to weigh the things they signifie, and truly herein your end is very Artificial; for you intend both to throw dirt at them that differ from you, and at the same time to cover yourself with such a subtle web, through which you may see, and not be seen. What follows, is rather a Rhetorical Lecture, such as the Patriots of Sects (who commonly Explain the Holy Scriptures according to their own Dogma's, and so obtrude humane Invention for the pure word of God) use with their Auditors, to recommend any Principle they have a mind to establish, than an Impartial and through disquisition of a controverted point; wherefore I do not think myself obliged to take any further notice of it; especially seeing truth, which for the most part is little regarded in such florid Discourses, and not any prejudice of Education, Interest, or Party, did set me about this subject. I have never been used to Complement in points of Controversy, therefore I hope you'l not be angry, because I have given you my thoughts naked and plain. I have not the least motion in my mind of accusing you of any formal design to injure Religion; I only observe unto you, that your over eager contention to maintain your Principle, has hurried you to assert many things of much greater danger, both in themselves and their consequences, than those you would seem to avoid; which do amount to no more than that, Men being (in the ordinary course of Providence) the Depositories of both Divine and Humane Laws, may (instead of using them to preserve) pervert them to destroy; which indeed is very lamentable.
But it is the inevitable consequent of our depraved nature, and cannot be wholly remedied, till Sin, and the grand Author of Sin, the Devil, be entirely conquered, and God be all in all; to whom, with the Son, and Holy Ghost, be glory for ever, Amen.
Sir, your Affectionate Friend to serve you.
Boston, July 25, 1694.
Boston, August 17, 1694.
Worthy Sir,
YOURS of July 25, being in some sort surprising to me, I could do no less than say somewhat, as well to vindicate myself from those many Reflections, mistakes and hard censures therein; as also to vindicate what I conceive to be Important truth, and to that end find it needful to repeat some part of mine, Viz. Conclusion.
[88] 1. That the glorious Angels have their Mission and Commission from the most High.