A Confutation of their arguments, which would haue Samuel himselfe to appeare. [Sidenote: _Eccle._46.] We will now come to the Confutatiō of their Arguments, which maintaine, that very =Samuel= himselfe appeared to the Sorcerers, for he that rightly ouerthroweth his aduersaries arguments, is supposed by the same meanes to confirme his owne cause. The chéefest arguments which our aduersaries vse, is taken out of the 46. chapter of =Ecclesiasticus=, where these words are found. =Samuel= before his death made protestation before God, and before his annointed, that he tooke from no man his substance, no not so much as the value of a shoe, and no man could then reproue him. And after his death he prophesied, and tolde the King of his ende. From the earth he lift vp his voyce, and shewed that the wickednesse of the people should perish. This place somewhat troubled S. _Augustine_, and other godly Fathers. For if the Diuell onely appeared, and not =Samuel=, howe is it there saide that he slept, that is, died, for the Diuel neyther sléepeth nor dieth. Hereunto I may shape this answere, that this booke is not to be nombred among the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament, and that Doctrine in controuersies, cannot bee proued by the authoritie thereof, the whiche Saint =Augustine=, also confesseth in his booke _De cura pro mortuis agenda_. But howsoeuer that be credited as true or false, I answere them plainly, that Iesus the Sonne of =Syraches= intent was, to alleage the Storie literally, as the wordes lye, and not by reason to debate the matter, whether =Samuel= truly appeared or no. Hée speaketh there according to the opinion of =Saule= and the Witche, which thought that =Samuel= himselfe was raised. Further they say, that hée which appeared vnto =Saule=, is sometimes expresly and in plaine words called =Samuel=. And an vnséemely matter it were, making much for the reproach of so great a Prophet, if his name had bene applied vnto the Diuel. If say they, it had not bene =Samuel=, but some wicked spirite, the scripture would in some one word or other, haue noted the same. To this Argument first I aunswere, that euen in our common spéeche, it is an vsuall phrase by the figure _Metonymia_, to terme the Image by the name of the thing, that it presenteth. So we terme the Armes and Ensigne of a Noble man, by the name of that Lord himselfe, that giueth those Armes. We say, this is =Iulius Cæsar=, =Nero=, Saint =Peter=, Saint =Paule=, or here thou maist sée the Cities of _Tigurine_, and _Argentorat_, also the Duke of _Saringe_, whereas indéed they are only their counterfeits, or Armes, and signes of honour.