betweene him and _Michaell_, concerning the bodie of _Moses_; wherein scripture is alledged. I confesse that _Augustine_, and the residue of the doctors, that denie the raising of _Samuell_, conclude, that the divell was fetcht up in his likenesse: from whose opinions (with reverence) I hope I may dissent. ♦_J. Bod. lib. de dæm. 2. cap. 3._♦ ♦1. Samu. 28.♦ ♦1. Cor. 5.♦ ♦_J. Martyr in colloquio cum Triphone Judæo._♦ ♦_Lact. lib. 7. cap. 13._♦ ♦Jud. vers. 9.♦ The tenth Chapter. _That neither the divell nor Samuell was raised, but that it was a meere cousenage, according to the guise of our Pythonists._ Againe, if the divell appeared, and not _Samuell_: whie is it said in _Eccle._ that he slept? for the divell neither sleepeth nor dieth. But in truth we may gather, that it was neither the divell in person, nor _Samuell_: but a circumstance is here described, according to the deceived opinion and imagination of _Saule_. Howbeit _Augustine_ saith, that both these sides may easilie be defended. But we shall not need to fetch an exposition so farre off: for indeed (me thinkes) it is _Longè petita_; nor to descend so lowe as hell, to fetch up a divell to expound this place. For it is ridiculous (as _Pompanacius_ saith) to leave manifest things, and such as by naturall reason may be prooved, to seeke unknowne things, which by no likeliehood can be conceived, nor tried by anie rule of reason. But in so much as we have libertie by S. _Augustines_ rule, in such places of scripture as seeme to conteine either contrarietie or absurditie, to varie from the letter, and to make a godlie construction agreeable to the word; let us confesse that _Samuell_ was not raised (for that were repugnant to the word) and see whether this illusion may not be contrived by the art and cunning of the woman, without anie of these supernaturall devices: for I could cite a hundred papisticall and cousening practises, as difficult as this, and as cleanlie handled. And it is to be surelie thought, if it had beene a divell, the text would have noted it in some place of the storie: as it dooth not. But _Bodin_ helpeth me exceedinglie in this point, wherein he forsaketh (he saith) _Augustine_, _Tertullian_, and _D. Kimhi_ himselfe, who saie it was the divell that was raised up: which (saith _Bodin)_ could not be; for that in the same communication betweene _Saule_ and _Samuell_, the name of _Jehovah_ is five times repeated, of which name the divell cannot abide the hearing. ♦_Pompanacius lib. de incant. cap. 2._♦ ♦_J. Bod. lib. de dæm. 2. cap. 3._♦ The eleventh Chapter. _The objection of the witchmongers concerning this place fullie answered, and what circumstances are to be considered for the understanding of this storie, which is plainelie opened from the beginning of the 28. chap. of the 1. Samuel, to the 12. verse._