1. There can be no right deduction made, nor no right consequence drawn, where there is no dependency in causality, nor no connexion of dependency. For as in the Relative and Correlative, the denying of the one necessarily destroys the other, yet _fundamentum Relationis non destruitur_; so a father without a child, as a father, doth neither exist nor is known, and yet the foundation of those two terms, of Paternity and Childship, which is Man, doth remain. So he that denieth Creation, doth destroy the Relative, which is Creator; yet the foundation, which is God, doth remain: and the denying of the Creation, doth not infer the necessary conclusion of denying the Being of a God, because there might be a God, though there were no Creation, because God is supposed to be, both in respect of causality and duration, before Creation. So what relation can Mr. _Glanvil_ feign betwixt the Being of God and the Being of Angels or Spirits? For they both belong to the Predicament of Substance, and not that of Relation; and there is less relation betwixt the Being of a Witch and the Being of Spirits: so that the denying of the one doth not infer the denying of the other. And though there were relation (which Mr. _Glanvil_ cannot shew) the foundation of that Relation (which is so necessary, that Relatives cannot subsist without it) might remain, though the Relatives were taken away: and therefore the denying of the existence of Angels or Spirits, doth not infer the denying of the Being of God; and therefore the Authors of this opinion are wrongfully and falsely charged with Atheism: and the denying of the existence of a Witch (in the sense specified) doth not infer the denying of the Being of Spirits; and therefore _Scot_, _Osburne_, and the like, are falsely and wrongfully charged with Sadducism. [Sidenote: _Argum. 2._] [Sidenote: Mat. 22. 23. Act. 23. 8.] 2. Though it be a true Maxime, that _de posse ad esse non valet argumentum_; yet on the contrary, the possibility of that can never be rationally denied, that hath once been in _esse_. But it is apparent, that the Sadducees denied the Resurrection, and that there were either Angels or Spirits, that is, they denied that Angels or Spirits, whether good or bad, did separately exist, and that they were nothing but the good or bad motions in mens minds: yet these men were no Atheists; for though they denied the Resurrection, and held that there were no Angels or Spirits, yet they held and believed there was a God, and did allow of, and believed the five Books of _Moses_, else would not our Saviour have used an argument, whose only strength was drawn from a sentence in the third Chapter of _Exodus_, the sixth verse. So that even the denying of the Existence of Angels and Spirits, doth not infer the denying of a God; much less doth the denying the Existence of a Witch, infer the denial of the Being of Angels and Spirits; and therefore the charge of Atheism and Sadducism is false, injurious, and scandalous.