[Sidenote: _Argum. 3._] 3. Those things that in their Beings have no dependence one upon another, the denying of the one doth not takeaway or deny the being of the other; but where the being doth meerly exist in dependency upon another superior Cause, there take away or deny the being of the first Cause, and thereby you take away and deny the being of all the rest that depends upon it. So he that denies the Being of a God, doth necessarily deny the Being of Angels or Spirits; but not on the contrary. For he that denieth the Existence of Angels and Spirits, doth not therefore necessarily take away or deny the Being of a God, because the Being of a God is independent of either Angel or Spirit, and doth exist solely by it self. And therefore if _Wierus_ or _Scot_ had denied the Existence of Angels and Spirits (which they did not) yet it would not have inferred that they were Atheists; and therefore are falsely accused by Dr. _Casaubon_ and Mr. _Glanvil_. And though they should have denied the Existence of Witches (which they did not _simpliciter, sed tali modo_) yet it would not have inferred, that they were guilty of Sadducism, because Spirits or Demons have their Existence without any dependence of the being of Witches; and therefore it is but a poor _fallacia consequentiæ_ to say, he that denies a Witch, denies a Demon or Spirit. [Sidenote: _Argum. 4._] 4. The denying of the Existence of Spirits, doth not infer the denying of the Being of a God, because in the priority of duration God was when Spirits were not, for they are not immortal _à parte anté_. So likewise the denying of the Existence of Witches, doth not infer the denial of the Being of Spirits, for in the priority of duration Spirits were existent before Witches; for _Adam_ and _Eve_ could not be ignorant that there were Spirits, both good and bad, and yet then there were no Witches. So that a Spirit having, in respect of duration, a Being before that a Witch can have any; the denying the Existence of the latter, doth not infer the denying of the Being of the former, but is meerly inconsequent, agreeable to no Rules of Logick, except that of Logger-head Colledge. [Sidenote: _Argum. 5._] 5. Many properties or proper adjuncts may be ascribed unto a substance, the denying of which adjuncts, doth not infer the denying of the being of the substance. So that to deny that a Horse hath fins like a fish, or wings like a bird, doth not infer the denying of the being of a Horse. Therefore it is injurious and scandalous in Dr. _Casaubon_ and Mr. _Glanvil_, to charge Dr. _Wierus_ and Mr. _Scot_ with Atheism and Sadducism, when indeed (as we shall prove hereafter) their own Tenents tend to blasphemy, impiety, vanity, and uncharitableness. Another thing that we oppose is, that Apparitions are no warrantable ground for a Christian to believe the Existence of Angels and Spirits by, but the Word of God, which these cogent reasons do sufficiently prove. [Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]