Though concerninge those greate workes of God in freeing di­uers from vexation of dyuels, at the hartye praiers of his people, wherein M. More and my selfe haue ioyned with them, these Dyal­logues containe stuff little to the purpose, considering the question is of matter of fact, whether any be freed from such vexation, or no, and not of the manner, how such vexation is wrought, which is hard for any mortall vnderstanding exactly to define: yet because Er­rors in doctrine be exceeding dangerous, & of admyrable increase, e­uery seede bringing forth a thowsand: I haue thought it not amisse to admonish thee Good Reader, in as breif manner as I can, what trumpery lyeth hid in each seuerall dyalogue: and the rather for that they were intended to disgrace that fact: which indeed they doe asmuch a the rage of man vsually doth the mighty operations of God: that is, they more increase the glory of it. For your first dialogue therefore, It is true that there are diuells that Diuells are no bare motions or affections, but natures spirituall, substantiall, and of personall beinge: which be called Angels:pag. 1. yet you speake dangerously when you say there be Essentiall Diuels as appeareth by their creation, as if by creation they had beene ma [...]e such: you disclayme this wicked opynion after­wards I confesse, and reason against it by some arguments: but euery one reades not all: & it beehoues vs, least occasion of error be ministred to any, to vse wordes of soundnesse in euery place.

Your Mahgnitton for Nottingham, M. Deacon you now what I mean [...] Eirtwab for Bawtrie & Eibrad for Da [...]bie: seemes to be some pedlers french, such as vpright men once practised when they ranged the country with their queanes: It is small credit for you to be expert in this language.

For the substance of that which followeth in prou [...]ng Spirits to be subsisting natures: It is generally to be allowed and embraced. And it had beene to be wished, you had kept the same moderation in the rest that you could haue bene content to haue trodden in the stepps of other godly & learned, as in this you haue in some sort done: ra­ther then haue runne new courses: both hurtfull to others & pernitious to your selues.

The secōd Dialogue dryueth to three cheifheads.pag, 40 The first treatinge of possession generallie, & making it common to all afflictinge (by the diuel) tormenting, & tempting both inwardlie and outwardlie, whereas the affliction of the minde is only called the trouble of consci­ence, & Sathan his tempting of man, temptation or suggestion, but ne [...]ther of them tearmed by the name of possession any where. Thys worde is proper to them, whose bodyes be extraordinarily racked or rent by Sathan, as the boy was Marke. 9, 20.

De Idolorū vanitate. in Mat 8:28 C [...]em Har­mon, lib 3: c [...]p 37 pag. 70: in M [...]r 1, 23 De ope ibus creation [...]s p [...]rte 1. lib. 4. cap 10: in Mat 8 28 A [...]elog 1. pag 606 pag, 126.Besides you distinguish betwene possession and obsession, contrary to the custome of all which deale in this argument. Cipryan saith, Di­uells adiured by vs, are compelled to goe out of the bodies obsess d. And Dionisyus Carthus [...]anus, In one obsessed there was a legion of divels Chemnicus treating of this argument, vseth ordinarily the worde [...]bs ssi [...]n. And in like manner doe other both of auncient and latter time. Yea I da [...]e be bould to say that where once in this argument writers vse the words p [...]ss [...]ssio, poss [...]ssus, possidere, they haue obsessio, obsessus, and obsidere ten times. So that where you make obsession c [...]mmon to all men in the world in the language of the learned, All men shold be Demoniacks▪ which though your pallat be so grosse that you cannot discerne how vnsauo [...]i it is, yet others can feele with theire fingers to be most absurd. But this was your ignorance,The e [...]istle to the Rea­der pag 1 which eyther knew not, or did not well consider what Obsession meaneth, as we shall shew more afterwards. And therefore as beseemeth men of privat opinion, you bring vs significati­ons forged in your owne mynt.

After you tell vs, that possessi [...]n is nowhere any reall inherency: In­deede we know, Possession signifies to ha [...]e a thing in ones power by any meanes howsoeuer, as a man may possesse an horse, although he be not in his belly. Neyther doe they which argue a r [...]all inh rencie reason from the word Poss [...]ssion, as you fondly and childishly imagine, but ftom other most plaine tearmes, of necessitye inforcing somuch, as shalbe declared in convenient place. If now P [...]ssessi [...]n import no re­all inherencie, pag. 34, 40. then you commit a double notable folly first that you blame the English Translator for thrusting this word into the text, wher­by the whole world hath bin vniversalli poss [...]ssed, as you say, with ma [...]y gr sse errors concerning the Divel his supposed p ssession in man. I am gladd our English translation is receaued vniuer [...]allye through the whole world: for otherwise, I hope the whole worlde would not vniuersally be deceaued by it But I pray you Sirs, (if your wyttes be your owne) if Possession carry no meaning of inherency, what hurt could the English translator doe, to the breedinge of this opinion in any, by vsing this word in the text? your fingers itched vntill you were scratching the Englishe translation:pag. 34, 3 Answere pag. 24. How els shoulde we haue knowne you to be great linguists? Secondly, if possession signifye no substantiall in being, to what end is your tedyous discourse that the word Poss [...]ssion is no where found in thi argumēt, either in the olde S [...]r [...]p­ture or in the new. you would make vs beleeue in your first dyalogue against me, it might probably be disputed, that til a little before the comming of Christ there were no essential poss [...]ssions at all i [...] Isra [...]ll. In Christ his time then it should seeme that there were essentiall possessions. [Page 3] Thus vnawares you destroy that you build. But to let this goe. Would you then finde possession there descrybed, where was no vse of any such thinge? Surely you were sick of a superfluity of Hebrewe, and except you had Timely vented it in thys place, you had certainly dyed for it.

Where you say, No true Interpretour did ever translate Daemonizo­menos, men essentially possessed with divels inherently in them, pag: 38 Indeed men vsually are loath in translation to render so many words for one. But neyther say you is it so vnderstood of the most iudiciall & soundest di­vines. You might haue donne well to haue produced the authorities of some, and to haue spared your former ydle and vnsauory florish, with your greeke and hebrew. Calvin saith,in Luc: 4:33, in Math: 12:43 When Demoniacks doe spe­ake the divels speak in them, & by them. Againe, It foloweth that the di­vel hath an habitation in men, because he is thence driuen out of the sonn of God. Beza termeth the dispossession of diuells, A casting of them out of the bodies of men. Now then whether these wordes,in Mat 12:26. To haue dy­uells speake in them and by them, the diuell to haue an habitation in men, to haue diuels cast out of the bodyes of men, sounde rather a real inherency, or the contrary, Let any indifferent man iudge. Peter Martyr speakes thus: Christ & the Apostles commaunded the divels, that they should go out of the bodies possessed. Piscator affirmeth,Loc: com: class, 1: cap. 10. sect. 30: math, 8, 28, mar 9, that god som­time permitteth vncleane spirits to dwel in man. He saith further: The mi­sery of the childe is set forth, by the inhabiting of the diuel. And Zanchius proues this inherency by sundry reasons. It were long to alleadge all: and we shall haue more occasion afterwards. Therefore eyther shewe vs the words of the most Iudiciall Divines, by which it may either ex­presly appeare, or at least be soundly gathered, that there is no sub­stantiall inbeing of divels in Demoniacks, or els be ashamed to face out an vntruth thus impudently in the open view of the world.

The second generall poynt disputeth, whether it be necessary Sa­than should first enter essentially into the possessed mans mind, pag, 42 before he cā possibly bring the body into his slavish subiection: which poynt you determine negatiuely, making to your selfe an aduersary of straw to fight withall, I neuer hauing affirmed any such thing. For my part I knowe the body may most violently be tormented by Sathan, when the mi­nde the meane while vphelden by the grace of god, doth not yealde vnto him. yet you proceede in this needelesse businesse, and frame an obiection out of theis words, And after the sopp Sathan entred into him. Iohn 13:27, This entrance say you is only an effectuall thrusting of the intended treason into Iudas his heart. de consens [...] Evang: lib 3: cap. 3 I will not dispute whether this entrance was substantiall, or no: (Augustine is of opinion it was not, but only a further degree of efficacy moving Iudas, whereto I consent) for this makes little [Page 4] to the matter in hand. Iudas is no where termed a Demoniack, of wh­ome only our question is, neyther in truth may be counted one. For Iudas betrayd not his maister ignorantly, or vp [...]n meere compulsion but through the voluntary mailice of his owne hart inflamed by the power of Sathan.actes 5 [...]3, So concerning Ananias, of whome it is said, the di­v [...]l had fill [...]d his heart, Though this entrance were not reall, yet this cause is neuer the worse▪ considering the question is not, how the diuel doth enter by suggestion, but by possession, in which state Ana­nias was not. Therefore cease to encomber your Reader with vnne­cessary talke, and either bring somthing to purpose, or houlde your peace. Next comes Physialogus in, and reasons very properly, but that he beates the anvile, not once striking the hot yron. The conclusion is, The bodie may be in slavish subiection to Sathan, pag: 43 before the minde it self be subdued: which if it be vnderstood of violent subiection, I haue alreadie graunted: but Phisialogus will needes also haue it true in volunta­ry subiection, as if there could be a willing obedience without the commaund of the will. But what is his reason? The bodie may be tempted externally, before the minde be subdued. And this poynt because we doub­ted not of it, is proued by two whole pages. But what? Is all tempta­tion before the minde be subdued a slauish subiection? Heere Phisialogus is altogither mute: he spent all his goates wooll in makinge his o­ther web, and hath not left himself one locke, to worke vp this peece with.

pag: 45The third generall poynt is, whether the divel doth essentially enter into any mans mind: which question I might well let passe, as little perteyning to this cause of ours. VVe only haue witnessed Gods greate goodnes towards certaine his servants in deliueringe them from the greuous rage of sathan: but whether this vexation proceeded from his reall dwelling in the minde, or no, we haue not taken vppon vs to discusse. It was ynough for vs to behould the flame, and the Lord in mercy quenching it, although we be not priuy from what fornace yt arose. Yet because you haue propounded it, and that it is worthy consideration, (so we conteine our selues within the boundes of christian sobriety,) I will say somthinge in regarde both of the Reader, and my selfe, desyrous rather to learne, and to finde out the truth, then pre­suminge to conclude any thing peremptorily: for what nede we, saith Augustine define any such thing with danger, Aug. enchi: ad Laurent: cap. 59 whereof we may be ignor­ant without blame? I answer therefore, the diuel doth not enter esse­ntially into the minde, that reasonable faculty of the soule, which comprehendeth the vnderstanding and will. The Lord only knoweth the harts of al the children of men. 1 kings 8:39 Neither yet doe I affirme that spi­rits doe really enter into the soules inferior powers and operations, [Page 5] as Quickning, Sense, Affection: only this I say, that after an hyd­den and vn [...]erchable manner they doe apply and ioyne themselues to these her inferiour workes. Gennad [...]us c [...]nsentinge with Bernard Augustine & Beda that the diuel doth not essentially enter into the minde, yet affirmeth that by an effectual application, Bernard. Ser. 5. super Can Aug, de SP, et Anima cap. 27 Beda in Act: 5, 3, Gennad. in definit: ecclesie dogmat. Bernard Ser: 5, Super cantic. Aug: de divinat: doemon [...] cap, 5, and a violent oppression he is nerely vnited vnto it. VVhat els is this application, & neere vnion vnto the minde, but the ioyning of himselfe to the phantasy and affections, the next neighbors to the vnderstandinge & will? So Bernard requireth the entercourse of some instrument, wher­by created Spirits might be applyed to the minde, that is, the Imagy­nations & affections, which be instrumentall, and by which they doe exceedingly worke vpon the highest powers in our nature.

And Augustine is most plaine avouchinge, that Divels perswade by marueilous and inuisible meanes, by their subtilty pearcing into the bodies of men, not at all perceaving thē, & mingling themselues with their cogitations by certain imaginarie sights, whether they be waking, or slee­ping. But this is principally cōfirmed by the scriptures thēselues, for that angels making their apparitions in sleepe, performe their ope­ratiōs immediatly. The outward sences at such time are all bound, so that by them they cannot conuey any thing from without, to the powers within. Example we haue in Ioseph, Math, 1, 20. to whome an angell appeared in sleepe, bidding him not feare to take Mary his wife. And as this Angell did speake in Ioseph, Zach: 1, 9 & 2, 3, Zach: 1, 8 so it might seeme the Angell which tal­ked with Zachary, did speake in Zachary, as the naturall force of the word doth signify. And the Angell, saith he, which talked in me.

This visyon made to Zachary was in the night, for so he saith, I saw by night. And this manner of speach, to see by night, Dan. 7.13 Dan, 7, 1, or to see night visions, is all one to see a dreame. For so Daniell speaketh, I sawe, saith he, by night visions, when as before he had declared it was by dreame, Daniell saw a dreame, and there were visions in his head, hee lying vpon his bed. Therefore Augustine had good reason to dispute of this place of Zachary as he did, considering Night apparitions, the force of the originall word, and the greeke interpretors so care fully expressing it,pag, 59, notwithstāding whatsoeuer these men say to the cōtrary. Besides, experiēce also giueth no small light to this matter. It must needes be that wicked & horrible cogitations, such as make a man euen to tremble for feare, should eyther arise fr [...]m the cor­ruption of the flesh, or from some outward cause, or else from the reall presence of some wicked spirit mouing the phantasy. But the flesh is no author of such horrour, which by all meanes it escheweth affording rather all flattering and intising allurements to perswade the minde by: neither is there any outward cause or occasion, wherby [Page 6] the thoughts should be so greuously assaulted, as is apparant in diuers so afflicted: It remayneth then they be stirred vp by the personall presence only of him, which if he be manfully withstood by faith will fly away.Iam: 5 This I take to be the truth in this poynt: war­ranted both from the scriptures, and from consent of cheifest inter­pretors. If these things now be so, though you should demonstrate the diuell doth not enter really into the minde, yet if he be so nere the phantasie & other inferiour parts, he will be found to be with­in a mile of him whome he doth possesse, and you to haue powred forth a great company of big wordes to small purpose.

If I desired to shew, how when you haue a good cause you handle it full yll, I might fitly doe it heere. That there is no mentall possession, you proue thus, The divells, as also mans minde, are crea­ted of god for other more speciall ends. pag. 46, 47, As if things destinated to some principall end, may not in meane season be vsed to other inferiour purposes.Mat, 25:34 Rom. 8:36, The elect are appointed to be heires of the kingdome, yet in this world they be as the sheepe of the slaughter. Indeede if you had shewed that god neuer purposed any such thing, you had said somewhat. Againe say you, The reall entrance into the spirits of men, doth obscure the peculiar office of the holy ghost, which is (repl [...]tiuely) to inhabite in our harts for ever. If any sholde affirme such entrāce he would not be so mad as to say, that spirits were there repletiuly. Seeing then there is no equality of their inbeing, (supposing such a thing) it doth no more obscure his office, then the light of a can­dle the cleare sun-shine. Further you say, whereas there be three maners only of inbeeing essentially, none of all these doth agree to the inbe­ing of wicked spirits. I answer, (to admit this inherency for this present dispute) they be there definitiuely. Then, say you, they are only there in conceit. what say you? are diuells in the Aer but only in conceyt? are they any other waies there then definitiuely? This conceyt of yours makes diuells but a meere fancy. I thought you had ment good footh in your first dialogue: but such counterbuffs as this would make one beleeue, you are priuately of other iudg­ment, whatsoeuer there you pretend. Notwithstanding these and other such like reasons of yours, (which for breuity I omit) the diuel may possesse the soule of man, as well as his body. Such acute disputers are ye. It is no maruaile though you maintayne your bad cause as you doe, when you mannage a good no better.

The third Dialogue handles two conclusions: The first, That spirits & diuels doe not enter essentially into the possessed mans bodie. The second, That they haue no true naturall bodies for this purpose [Page 7] culiar to themselues: importing a necessity of naturall bodies for a reall entrance: A thing most absurd.

That spirits doe enter really into mens bodies, we haue partely heard, but it is more euident by that which followeth.Math. 1, 20, Heb. 1, 14. They pre­sent themselues to the phantasy without mediation of any outward sence: not by way of influence, themselues being absent, as the sune abidinge in the heauens pearceth with his beames to the earth: by personall presence therefore, which is required in their actions: For which cause they be Angels, that is, R [...]porters, sent forth to the mini­sterie, as the example of Gabriel sent to Daniel & Mary declare.

Againe they which dealt with familiar spirits, are tearmed by the 70. Interpretours Engastrimythi, that is, such as speake after an ex­traordinary manner out of their bellies: not as if they had a drum by their sides, but from a reall being of a spirit in them. For so it is said concerning them,in Levi [...]: 19, 21 Engastru­meni, Aristoph. in uespis, If a man or a woman haue a spirit of diuina­tion, or southsayinge in them &c. Of whome Theodoret speaketh thus: Some by certaine divels being swollen in th ir bellies deceiued many of the simple, as f [...]retelling (forsooth) things to come, which the Greci­ans tearme Bowel-prophets, f [...]r that the diuel seemed to speake from with in them. Vnto whome Aristophanes alludeth. But imitating (saith he) the soothsaying & wisdome of Euricles, by entring into other mens bel­lyes, I hau [...] poured forth many pritty comicall things. Vpon which wordes the Scholiast writeth thus. This Euricles was a Belly-speaker, mar: 5:5, 13, & 9, 22, & was reported at Athens to haue prophecied many true things by a diuell that was within him. Afterwards this manner of spirit was called Py­thon, as Th. Beza witnesseth vpon the 16. Chapter of the Actes ve. 16. where you may see more to this purpose. Besides, it is playne, that they which be possessed, are carried by an inward moouer, & not by a thing forcing them outwardlie. All outward violence, as if one be drawne, or thrust forward, hath a resistance in the bodie. but men possessed cut themselues with stones, cast thems [...]ues into the fier, & into the water, and runne to their owne destruction most greedeely, as also the swine did hauing receaued these guests: w [...]erevp­pon the Primitiue Church fitly called them Energumeni, as hauing the verie reall fountaine of this operation within them. But cheef­lie it is to be remembred, that in the Gospell the diuell is said toLuk. 11, 26: enter into men: to beact: 19 16: in them, toMat, 12, 45: dwell in them, and whē these men (whome we call Demoniacks) were healed, toMath: 12 43, & 17, 2 [...] Lu [...]e 4, 5 4 [...] come or go out of them, to beMath, 7 22 & 10, 1 8 cast or throwne out, and to beMarke 3 23. driuen out Marke [...] 25 Goe out of him (saith Christ) and enter no more into him: Then [Page 8] the spirit came out. Againemar. 1, 25: Hold thy peace, & come out [...]f him: then the Diuel came out of him. And againe, [...] mar. 5:13, math. 8, 31: Come out of the man, thou vncleane spirit Heerevpon the diuels besought Iesus, saying: If thou cast vs out, suff [...]r vs &c Then the vnclean [...] spirit went out, & e [...]r [...]d in to the swine. pag, 3 4 38. Where therefore the Discoursers say, there be no proper w [...]rds or tearmes in any of the places [...]f Scripture concerning Demoniacks exp [...]essing an essentiall p [...]ss [...]ssion, the falshood thereof is so manifest, that it may be seene with ones forhead. For what words or te [...]rms can possibly be more proper, direct, & plaine, to expresse the inhe­rency of spirits in Demoniacks then these vsed by the holy ghost?Mat. 27, 52: It is written that after Christs resurrection many dead bodies arose, & cāe out of the graues, and appeared vnto many. Is it not heereby manifest, that those dead bodies had bene buried, and layd in graues? In the 10. of Luke we reade that the Samaritane hauing carried the man that was robbed betweene Ierusalem and Iericho to an Inne, tooke out (viz. of his purse) two pence and gaue them to the host, sayinge that whatsoever he should spend more, he would recompence. I woulde know now of M. Deacon and M. Walker, whether these two pence were not once in the Samaritans purse. And whether if they were neuer in his purse, it is possible he should take them out of his purse. In like sort S. Marke speaking of Mary Magdalen, saith, that out of her Iesus cast seaven diuels. And Luke that out of her went seaven divells. I demaund now whether seauen diuels were not first in her, before they went out of her.Mark. 16.9: Luke, 8.2 This egresse of the spirit (so often mentioned in the gospell) doth euidently proue the ingresse and inherency of the spirit. Yet the holy ghost resteth not heere, but doth in as plaine & expresse wordes affirme the ingr [...]sse, and the inherencie of the spirit, as the egresse thereof. The ingresse is set downe in these words, enter no more into him. Also he commeth with seauen worse then himselfe, and they enter in. mark. 9.25, mat. 12.45. Luk 4:33: & 8.27. The inherencie in the words following, and they dwell there. Likewise in that Demoniacks are said, to haue a diu [...]ll. But cheifly and most plainly this appeareth by the 19. of the Acts where Luke mentioning the wounding of the seauen sonnes of Sce­ua, saith, And the man in whom the euill spirit was, ran on them, & ouercame them. These things must now needs be Reall, except we will haue a man to enter into an house, which comes no nearer then the dore: to dwell and be in it, and yet neuer come vnder the roofe: and to be throwne out, though he was neuer within. If one shoulde charge you M. Deacon that you were throwne out of Ireland, how would you defend your selfe? were it not sufficient to shewe you [Page 9] were neuer in Ir [...]lan [...] ▪ So if the diuell could truly affirme he was neuer in any mans b [...]ie, he would thinke he had no sn all aduant­tage against the Gospell, that proues him so oft to be throwne out. I beseech you let him be his owne Proctor, and doe not you helpe him with a shift, whereby he might inueigle anie.

As this inherencie of spirits in Demoniacks is cleered by the holy scriptures, so hath the same in all ages bene receaued for a truth,Tertul in Apol, cap. 3 [...] CyPria [...]: de Idol. uanita­te Aug. lib. de ciuit. Dei 8, in f [...]ne ca [...]i­tis 26, A [...]g de d [...] doem: cap. 5. in Ma [...], 5:7: Th Aqui. 2 2 q. 165. art. 2 arg. 4, as appeareth by the testimonies of learned writers here followinge. Tertullian saith, It is not hard for the diuels to peirce into our bodies. A­gaine. We expell diuels out of men, as is knowne to many. These spirits saith Cyprian, disquiet our sleepe, and secretly also creeping into the b [...] ­dies terrify the minde, distort the members, &c. Augustine affirmeth, that the diuels are tormented, and cast out of the bodies of men possessed. Againe, that through their subtlety they can peirce into the bodies of men when they perceaue them not. Theophilact writeth thus: The Lord doth aske him his name, not that he himself but others should learne the multitude of diuels that were in him. Men know not saith Aquinas, Io com [...]cl [...] 4: cap 9, [...]ect 16, when the diuel speaketh in them, what they speake. Peter Martyr reasoninge a­gainst the papists exorcysing in baptisme, hath these wordes: See­ing these Exorcists be not able to driue vncleane spirits out of them in whō it is not doubted but that they are: why babble they, in Mar. 5, 9, in Mat: 12 26 that they cast them out of them, in whome they shew no signe of their presence? Calvin saith, why a legyon dwelt in one man, is not for vs to enquire. Beza thus: Not of euery eiection of diuell [...] out of the bodies of men may this be affirmed which Christ heere concludeth: Chem. Har. li: 3 cap, 37. pag 70 in Ma, 9:29, quest: 38: seing by couenant sathan may easily suffer himself to be cast forth of the bodies, that he might the more easily raigne in the soules of men. Sometimes (saith Chemnicius) wicked spirits god permitting them, homines ingrediuntur, doe enter into men, and doe so possesse them, that they dwell in them, Dan. de sor­tiariis, Chy in Math. 8.28 abusinge their members after their will. Danaeus saith, fasting I refer to prayer, but not to the man poss [...]ssed, as though by the scarcity of victualls and want of meate, sibi inhereutem Daemonem expellat, he should ezpell the diuel inherent in him. For diuels in Demoniacks are not fed with meate Againe, the diuels in the bodies of men haue spoken. Chitreus giueth this definition of possession, that it is an affliction of the body deliuered into the p [...]wer of Sathan, where by both the body is Out of the fits the actions of Demoniaks be g [...]uern­ed of the mīd, in their fits by [...]e Diuel. rent, and of Sathan inhabited, and the actions of the memb [...]rs gouerned not [...]f the minde only, but partly also by the vn­cleane spirit. Againe saith he: As spirits be in a place definitiuely, so a diuel, or more, occupy the body deliuered vp to their power: meaninge that they are definitiuely in those bodies that is, they be in them, [Page 10] so that they be not any where else.De opertib. cre. part 1 lib 4 cap 10 See further in Chytrius. Zanchi­us hath these wordes. Sathan doth so invade vs, vt in nostra etiam pe­ni [...]ret et ingrediatur corpora, that he doth peirce & enter into our bodies, and doth diuersly affect the same within. I see not why we should not say substantia sua illos ingredi, that they doe in their substance enter into them. And after some arguments to proue this, that they doe sub­stantia suae manere in hominibus, in their substance or essence abide in men: he concludeth thus. These things shew that diuels haue bene with in in such kinde of men: and moued them hither and thither, as agents internall, not externall. Piscator vpon these wordes Luke 8.2. and c [...]r­taine weomen which he had healed of euill spirits, saith: a, hic n [...]tat ad­iunctum inherens. This preposition of, noteth here the adiunct inherēt. VVhereby it is euident that he houldeth the inherency of spirits in de moniacks Otho Casman maketh his entrance to his treatise of posses­sion thus.Angelograp pag 606 what posses­sion is, There remayneth to be treated of, the entring of diuels into the bodies of men & poss [...]ssion. He proceedeth. Poss [...]ssion is an action of the diuel, wherein the diuel entring into the body of man doth poss [...]sse it, and exercise vpon it the power receaued, to hurt and torment it. The partes of possession be two: the ingresse of the spirit, the exercising of the pow­er that is graunted. The ingresse is, wherby the diuel first entreth into the body, and hauing entred doth possesse it. and is in it. And handlinge this question how or after what manner diuels be in men: he resol­ueth it thus we say that they be in them indeed even personally. For further confirmation of this inherencie you haue Centuria 1. lib. 2. pag. 502. Socrat. 7. Cap. 8. Minutius in Octavio. Dionisius Carthusi­anus in Luc. 4.35. et in Math.. 8.28. Sculietus in Medulla theolog. patrū. pag. 55. Luther. in Math. 8.28. Erasm. annot. in Act. Apo: 19.16. Gualther in Mar. 5.1. Brentius in Mar. 5.9. Bucer in Mat. 17.21. Ph. Melanchton lib. Epistolarū. Bullinger: Decad. 5. Ser. 3. Marlorat▪ in Marc. 5.15. Musc. in Math. 12.27.43. D. Fulke his answer to the Rhem. Test. Math. 17.21.

By the premisses, not only the falshood, but the blasphemy of these men doth manifestly appeare: who feare not to call this said doctrine of inherencie of Sathan in Demoniacks, Answere pag 17, 18 & 341, an absurd & senslesse opinion, and to reiect it, as fond and frivolous. Hereby also doth appeare their notorious impudency, in that notwithstandinge the premisses (whereof they cannot be altogether ignorant,Dialog. Disc epistle to the Reader pag, 2: pag 39, specially if they haue ransact so many libraries as they affirme they haue) they stick not to say, that if the seuerall writings of the most iudiciall & soundest Diuines be exactly considered, we shall finde, that not any one [Page 11] of them all d [...]e vnderstand by Demoniacks, any such persons as are essentially possest with a diuel inherently in them. pag, 55. 56, 57, 58 Why I my self haue here­tofore [...]ewed the contrary, out of Tertullian, Ciprian, Chrisost [...]me Peter Ma [...]tyr, Philip Melanchton, Beza Vogellius, and Danaeus, as appeareth by the Doctrine. You might well therefore haue ommitted these wordes, vntill you had returned answer to those testimonies, Ans. pag, 33 and likewise haue restrayned to say that the [...]ssentia [...]l poss [...]ssion of de­uels is only a devise & dreame of my owne. Bu [...] it may in no ca [...]e be-forgotten, that whiles you tell vs all sound Divines are on your side, and not somuch as one with vs, you pro [...]uce not a sentence out of sound or vnsound Diuine: so as if we will beleeue what you say,prou. 14:15, we must take it of your word: which no wise man will doe. Wherevp­pon it commeth that ye are so barren heere [...]n the allegations o [...] [...]a­thers and new writers, who so abound therein else where: we may easily co [...]ecture. How Bucer, Calvin, Marlo [...]a [...], Gua [...]ter & Beza, whome you coate in the margent as Diuines on your side, be not with you but against you, it is plaine by that is aforesaid. Wherein we may be somewhat confirmed by their silence, but more by go [...]g to the places ye your selues haue quoted.

Lastly, if diuels haue no such in being in the poss [...]ssed, surely some writer of account considering the letter of the scripture is so plaine for it, and the generall mistake of all former ages, would in his ex­position haue admonished the Reader least he should stumble at these words in taking them litterally. But I finde no such caution in an [...], tha [...] (searching) I haue seene, till M. Deacon and M Walker now af [...]e [...] sixtee [...]e [...]undreth yeares haue T [...]m [...]ly put vs in mynde thereof. [...]nly Peter Lumbard saith,Sent. lib: 2 dist, 8. q, 4 It is not so pe [...]spicuous whether th [...]y e [...]tred really, or no. But this was his schoole fashion: to finde a kno [...]n a bulrush. Yet hee doth not resolue of the matter. But it may be these smart disputers haue found out that, wherein the skil and [...]earning of all other haue fa [...]led. Let vs therefore weigh their reasons, when first we haue heard their answer to our foresaid ma [...]e reason taken from the gospell.

Wheras the letter of entrīg in, of dwelling, of casting out is vrged these men shift of these places thus, They are not to be construed according to the letter. why so? Because the Lord saith,Reu. 3.20. Ioh 14.2 [...] And I will enter in vnto him. And againe, and we will come vnto him & dwell with him: which are not to be vnderstood of an essentiall entrance.

I answer, your bouldnes is exceeding great, who vpon so slender a foundation durst presume to depart from the euident wordes [Page 12] of the scripture, so frequently vsed without any chaunge. Because the Lord saith I will enter, a d yet doth not enter essentially, doth it therevpon follow, that al [...]o diuels where it is said they doe enter, should not enter essentially? Is there the like reason of the infinite an [...] of fin [...]e spirits? God being euery where cannot be sai [...]e to en­ter but figuratiuely, but in the creature, which entreth by chaun­ging p [...]ace it is alwaies proper: except we can shew necessary rea­son to the contrary. By as good cōsequence you might proue that Aar [...]n the high preist neuer entred into the tabernacle of the congregation essentia [...]y. The Lord commaunded the Israelites to make a tab r [...]acle for him, Exod 2 [...]:5, p [...]al [...].7.9 that he might dwel amongst them. And Dauid willeth the euerlasting d ores to lift vp their heads, that the king of glory might [...]ter in but [...]ay you, the King of glory did neuer enter in essentially, and therefore where it it is said that A [...]ron went into the tabernacle, it is by your leaden rule, to be taken that he went not in corporally. Such foolery if it might be suffered wold make the scr­ipture a nose of wax, if men might reiect the letter vpon euery such absurd fancy. It irkes me to spend time in reproouinge such do­tage.

But you say, Sathans entring into Iudas, (Ioh. 13.27) which is the same manner of speach, is nothing else but that Sathan did darte or thrust the treason into his heart.

I reply as before, Iudas was not a Demoniack, and therefore this example fittes not the purpose. It is not necessary the same speach in suggestion, and possession should import the same thing, it being proper to the one and figuratiue to the other. But if you can shew vs a possession which was effected by darting only cogitations into the heart, we will yeald vnto you that these wordes of entring & dwelling imply no reall inbeeing. This is in effect that you say. These words, entring into Ioh. 13.27. [...]e not to be vnderstood li­terally, therefore in the Scriptures concerning Demoniacks, the said wordes are not to be vnderstood literally. By this reason, Christ entred not into Capernaum, as it is said he did Math. 8.5. Neither entred he in to a ship, as it is said Math. 8.13. Neither entred Mary into the house of Zacharias, as it is writtten Luk. 1.40. But some spiritual and mistical thing is in these places to be vnderstood by the words, entred into: for to make this an argument you must haue this for your proposition: These words entring into whersoeuer they be foūd in Scripture, are not to be construed accordinge to the letter. Now this proposition. I will be so bould as to deny, and put you to the [Page 13] proofe thereof in your next learned Discourse.

You goe on further in your answer thus. Wheresoeuer the Scrip­tures speake of the diuel his e [...]tring in, Answ. page 15. and 21. & going out of the parties posses­sed, they speake it only by Metaph [...]re. And this you proue by Mark. 1.23. which place you shew at large cannot be taken in the li [...]erall sence. Answ pa. 17 How Marke 123 is to be expounded, it is euident by compar­ing it with Lu [...]e 4, [...]3 & with acts 19:16. As also by conferring Mark 5 2. with Luke 8.27 Ioh. 10 & 15 Luke 13:32, 2 Tim. 4.17,

After this manner (indeed) you argue. One place of Scripture concerning Demoniacks, viz. Mark. 1.23. can n [...]t be taken in the literall sence, but metaph [...]ricallie: therefore no scripture concerning Demoniacks Shall I instead of further reply proceede to reason after your man­ner? Thus then will I reason. Diuers places of Scripture concerning Christ, can not be vnderstood literally, but metaphorically: therfore none. Or thus, Christ is said to be a dore, a vine, ergo Christ was not borne of a virgine, crucified &c. H rod was a * fox, therefore not a king. Nero a * lyon: therefore not a man. But supposing these wordes of entring in, and going out, wheresoeuer in holy scripture they haue relation to the diuel, were not to be vnderstood literally, are they therefore to be taken metaphoricallie, as euery where you tell vs? No verily. There were a plain [...] metonymie of the effect, and not a metaphore. And considering you vse the worde effectiuely so often, and that you say oft, that this going out, pag [...]6 and entring in of the diuel, must be vnderstood of an effectuall and powerfull operation: me th­inkes if you were so great clarkes, as you seeme to your selues, & to some poore soules in the world: you should one time or other haue be thought you of this error, which a scholler at the grāmer schole would quickly correct. If you will needes haue here a metaphore, I pray you let it hereafter be made to appeare, with his protasis and apodosis: that so we may conceaue this hidden metaphor. But Orthod xus leaueth not heere. And this I say further, Aut. pag 15 (quoth he) that you can not possibly alleadg throughout the whole Scriptures, any one text, wherein either Angels or Spirits, or diuels are otherwise spoken of then only by metaph re. VVhat? Is euery Scripture of this kinde metaphoricall? why you your selues doe tell vs, that where in Luk. 4.35. a man is said to haue a spirit of an vnclean diuel, that by spirit we must vnderstande the impulsion, motion, or inspiration of the spirit. Answere pag 20, 21 Ac­cording to which sence, say you, the word spirit is vsualy obserued both in th [...] olde a [...]d new testament. And for confirmation thereof you al­leadg Dan. 4.5.6. & 5.11, 12. Reu. 16.24. In these places then there is a metonymie, as euerie boy can tell you, and not a metaphor. Ioh 15, 2 [...]. Againe, where Sathan is said to enter into Iudas, that is, suggest or [Page 14] thrust the intended treason into him, another text alleadged & ex­pounded by your selfes: who [...]e [...]th not that this is spoken metonimi­ce, and not metaphoric. In the fift of the Actes it is said of [...]annias, that satan filled his heart This filling, say you, in page 48, was effec­tiuely. Here then likewise is a m [...]tonymie, wel metonymie or meta­phore, or whatsoeuer [...]t is, this they are very sure of, that it is not possible to shew any one place of scripture, wherein that which is spoken of Angels or diuels, is to be interpreted literallie. No? VVhat say you to Heb. 1, 14? where it is said, they are ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for their sake, which shall be heires of salvation? And concer­ning diuels, these places must needes be vnderstood according to the letter. Satan pr [...]uoked Dauid to number Isra [...]ll. The deuil hath be­ne a murtherer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him whe [...] h [...] sp [...]ak th a li [...], 1 Chro. 21.1 Ioh 8.44, Iames 2 19, mar: 5:12, Luc. 4, 2 Pet, 2.4 Ivde 6, then speaketh be of his owne, for he is a lyar. The divels beleeue & tremble. All the diuels besought Iesus. Iesus was 40. dayes tempted of the diuel. The diuel saide, if th [...]u be the sonne of God &c. The diuel set him on a pynna [...]e of the temple. The Angels sinned [...] are cast downe into hell, to be kept vnto damna­tion. The angel k pt not their [...]irst estate. They are reserued vnto he iudgment of the great day. Heerevnto many more places might be added, but these suffice to shew that many thi [...]gs spoken of sp [...]t [...] are to be vnderstood acc [...]rding to the very lat r. And so ar [...] without con [...]rouers [...] in particuler the places to be interpreted concerning the di­uels entring into Demoniacks, & go [...]ng out of them no [...]it [...]standing whatsoeuer these vaine [...]anglers, [...]hich would be [...]o [...]tors & yet vnderstand not what they speake neither whe [...]eo [...] affirme) prattle to the contrary. Which iangling of the [...]s is very ca [...]e, to be reselled, by the rules which a [...]l men deliuer, when the [...]tures are figuratiuely to be vnderstood,Zanchius de o [...]e [...]b, [...]ede pag. 66 and when not figura [...]uely, but properly. Then namely are they t [...] be vnderstood figu [...]a [...]ue [...]y, when the s [...]nce, which the very words taken according to [...] p [...]per [...]g [...]i [...]cati n sounds, agreeth not with other scr [...]tu [...]e, and with the a [...]al [...]gy of faith: but is rather repugnant to the holy scriptu [...]es. On the other de [...] pro [...]erly, when it doth not repugne. Now to what testimonies of the scripture, is this entring in, and g [...]einge out r [...]pug [...]a [...], being literallie vn [...]er­stood?Ad Gen. li 11, caP 1. what scripture is there that contrarieth this ingr [...]sse, inb [...]inge, and goeing out of the spirit we speake of? To the former rule let vs adde this other of Au [...]ustine. Wh n any thing (saith he) is f und in the Scripture, which cannot with [...]ut an ab [...]urdity be possbly interpreted literally that thing without doubt is spoken figuratiuely, & must receaue [Page 15] some other signification, then the bare letter doth seeme to import: and otherwi [...]e accordinge to the letter, for that is to be vnderstood. But from this said literall interpretation, there can arise no absur­dity, therefore not a figuratiue, but the litterall interpretation is heere to be receaued.

But you proceede in your answere saying: that we must not so strictly tye our selues to the obseruation of words: else, pag. 67 1 Sa. 16, 14: how will we vnderstand this Scripture? The good spirit of the Lord departed from Saule: & an euil spirit of the lord came vpon him. And so ye goe on [...]umbling the second time about an equall manner of entring by the holy spirit, and the bad. If Saule was possessed with an euil spirit (say you) when the euil spirite of the Lord came vpon him, then also was he really possest with the good spirit of god when he was annoynted King, because it was so promised, That the spirit of the Lord should come vpon him. 1, Sam 10, 6 10:

I answer first, that Saule was no Demoniack. Secondly, I haue sufficiently shewed your grossenes in attributinge a like manner of entring to God the infinite spirit, and to the wicked angel a finite creature. The good spirit being euery where, commeth vppon a man, by causing his graces more to appeare, and to sprout forth in him: the euil spirit being of a limitted nature, and therefore absent from one place, when he is in an other, comes vpon and into a man, not by influence and instigation properly, but by personall & reall presence This considered your hebrew is to no purpose, page 68. as also that, which you no lesse falsly then tediously avouch in the next page, wherein you match the good and euil spirit togither in a self same manner of entring into men. Thus much for replie to the answer you giue to the aforesaid maine argument prouing a re­al possession. Let vs now examine your reasons, whereby you goe about to ouerthrow the same, and to proue, that the diuel did neuer reallie enter into, & inherently dwell in the possessed mans bodie. pag 65, & answere page 65, 68. Their firct argument against reall pos­session. pag 34: 35.

First you say, That there be no proper wordes or tearmes in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacks, expressing an essentiall possession: which the holy ghost wanted not if he had euer purposed to expresse such a matter. For neither the hebrew word achuzzah, nor iere­shah, nor ierushah, morashah, n [...]r the grecke word etema, which is or­dinarily obserued in the new testament to set forth poss [...]ss [...]on by, as the o­ther be in the olde, are vsed in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacks: therefore there be no proper wordes or tearmes in any of the places of scripture concerning Demoniacks expressing an essentiall posses­sion.

Ans: I deny the argument. For there may be, nay there are other wordes and that very often vsed by the holy ghost, in those scriptures which concerne Demoniacks, that manifestly declare the inh [...]rency of the spirit in Dem [...]nia [...]ks: which these wordes, signifying possession, nor any of the same significatiō doe not, had the sāe bene vsed by the holy ghost. Doe I any where, ye Discoursers, or yet any man else, goe about to proue the inherency of spirits in Demoniacks, from our English translation, and from the tearmes of poss [...]ssion and possessed? Surely neither my selfe, nor yet any other of meane vnderstā ­ding euer doted so much. For first I know very wel, that the word in the Original signifieth neither possession, nor possessed. Second­lie, admit it did, it were very absurd from thence to conclude this inbeing of the spirit. A man may be possessed of an house, though he be not in it. So might the diuell be possest of a man, albeit he were not in him if there were nothing else to proue the inbeeing of Sathan in men possessed. Whereby the vanity of this Prosyllogisme doth notably appeare: and that these men keepe much adoe about mooneshine in the water: Their leaues consumed about the terms of possession and poss ss [...]d, seruing to no other purpose, but to pro­clayme their great skill (forsooth) in the hebrew & greek tongues. As for our English translators, they in translating the word Daemo­nizomenoi, in latin Daemoniaci, possessed with diuels, did not respect so much the propriety of the word, as the condition of Demoniackes, and to explane that word, by shewing (in parte) what a Demoni­acke is.Cypri: ad Domiti: tract. 1, Chrysostom Tom: 5 de in compre, Dei natu: hom, 4. Aug. lib. 8 de Ciua [...]: D [...]i cap. 26 And from hence it is that the words possession and possessed haue bene vsed by Cyprian, Cheysostome, Augustine, and generally all auncient and latter writers vntill this day. Not to note the inbeing of the spirits in Demoniacks, (which neede not) as theis Ianglers fond lie pretend, but to shew that the diuel houldeth in his dominion or power the bodies of Demoniackes, as a man doth that which he possesseth.

From this argument they proceede further to argue against reall possession vnder certaine foolish and vnlearned questions: & Or­thodoxus being out of breath, Phisial [...]gus starts vp in his place, and proues it by good senslesse reason. Doe you imagine (saith he) that the Lord euer propounded any such ende to himselfe in the creation of bo­dyes? Arg. 2 page. 70: 75. 76. and 341. Answ.

Thus might one reasō against that saving of the Apostle 1. Cor. 6.15. Also against the torment the bodies of the damned shall en­dure in hell. Doe you imagine, the Lord euer propounded to hīselfe any [Page 17] such end in the creation of bodies? They will answere, the Lord did not propound any such end, but man brought them vpon him by sinne. Euen so doe I▪ Man by his sinne bringeth (sometimes) that body of his to be a receptacle and habitation for the vncleane spirit, which otherwise should be the habitation of God, and temple for the holy ghost to dwell in.

But goe to, (saith he) What becomes of the soule, Argu. 3 Pag 70: all the while the diuel is in the body? Romaines the soule stil in that body, or is it vtterly expelled, & thrust out of the same?

It remaines still in the body. Answere In a swound the soule is in the bo­dy, though it doe not shew it selfe in her animall and organicall o­perations. Euen so in this case, the soule is in the Demoniacks bo­die, though in his fits, not his spirit, but the vncleane spirit, shew it selfe by the effects.

This naturalist goeth on thus. If there be a reall possession, Arg. 4 pag 73, 74 & 341. then the soule during the time of the possession, shall not be accomptable for a­ny those peculiar actions of the bodie, which it neuer directed the bodie vnto, nor gaue consent vnto.

This is cunninglie done of you, Ans: that in the last iudgment you can diuide the bodie & the soule asunder, that each may giue account for their seuerall actions apart. Secondly, your proposition is very childish. VVhat if the diuel force the tongue to blasphemy? what if he abuse the other members to all villany? Shall not the creature which hath bene deseruedly yealded vp into the power of the aduersary, be guiltie that it hath bene an abused instrument to the crea­tors dishonour? We may remember heere,Gen: 3:14. that the diuels instru­ment in deceauing Euah, receaued therefore punishment from the Lord. If you had weighed these thinges, you had brideled your selues from much idle talke.

Their fyft argument followeth. Arg. 5 pag, 55 The diuel needeth no reall posses­sion in any mans bodie, therefore he doth not really possesse any mans bo­die.

I answer your friuolous argument with the like. Answere: The diuell nee­deth none of your actuall possession, therefore he neuer possessed a­ny actually, which you say sometimes he did. The diuel needeth not to tempt men: therefore he doth not tempt any.

But you say, Argu. 6 pag, 75 The diuell neuer receaued larger commission against any mans bodie, then against Iobs, & yet was not he essentially poss [...]ssed, therefore there was neuer any possessed essentiallie

This argument halteth on the right leg, and is like to this: Ans. [Page 18] Iob had not (that we reade) the pal [...]y, the stone, the collick, therefore ther [...] are no such diseases. If you will haue this an argument, let this be your proposition, and heereafter prooue it All the diseases & in­firmities the body of man is subi [...]ct vnto by Sathan, th [...]se had Iob.

Iob. 2.6.God permitted the diuel to asslict Iob in his bodie, which before he had denyed him: doth it therevpon follow that he might d [...]e to the body of Iob what he would?The kilinge of him e [...]ce­pted which he was expresslye for bid to doe. Mat. 4.5.8 To the diuel great power likewise was graunted ouer the blessed bodie of our Sauiour. He tooke & car­ried it (in the ayre) out of the wildernesse vnto Ierusalem, and sett it on a pynacle of the temple, and from thence he had it to an ex­ceeding high mountaine. Had Sathan because of this leaue and permission, absolute and full power ouer Christs & Iobs bodies, & not a limyted power? Againe, were this so, yet it may well be that tho­ugh the diuel could, yet he would not enter into Iob. Because the marke the diuell aymed at, was to draw Iob from his fearing of God, and eschewing of euill, to the committing of euill, and blaspheminge of God to his face: Iob. 2.3:5 wherevnto possession serued not somuch, as other kinde of afflictions.

Physialogus goes on, and powres out other arguments of like liquor. Arg. 7, pag. 76, What possession (saith he) the diuell hath in any, the same hath be in all the posterity of Adam, yea in Adam himselfe. This propositi­on it were fit the Maisters of Bedlam might resolue you in. Yet go on, what then? But there is no reall possession in all the posterity of Adā Though I wil not striue with you in this point, but willingly yeilde it, Yet the reason you render of it is verie si [...]ly, to wit, for that the image of God is yet essentially in man. As if the Lord could not & doth not preserue that little rubbish of his image left in his creature though he suffer Sathan to enter really into it. The Diuel entred in to paradise before mans transgression: yea the aer carries a stampe of Gods wisedome and power, yet the diuel hath an essentiall beīg in it. But to come to the argument it selfe. Adam was not essential­lie possest, and with him all his posterity: therefore there is no essential possession. Such an argument for all the world is this. All men haue not the gowt, therefore none haue the gowt. I maruaile how Physialogus could make it without the help of Orthodoxus. Although this argumēt deserue rather to be hissed at, then answered, yet I returne that the consequence is faultie. Answere, It followeth not that none of Adams posteritie be really possest if all be not: because Adam and euerie one of his posterity are not by the appointment of god, to tast of euery infirmity that they by their sinnes haue brought themselues in daun­ger [Page 19] of, and made themselues subiect vnto. Adam and euery sonne of his are subiect to the leprosie, palsy, stone, gowt &c. yet is not euery one a leper, euery one hath not the palsie, stone, &c.

But goe to Physialogus, open your packe to the bottome. Then take this with you. Arg. 8 pag 77. If an humane bodie be capable onely of an humane soule, then is it vncapable of an essentiall diuel: but the first is true: therefore also the latter.

If this proposition of yours Physialogus be vndoubtedlie true, Ans. as you doe tell vs: I maruel how you & Orthodoxus doe liue: & whe­ther you two breath & draw aire, whether also you receiue any su­stenance. For if you breath, or receiue susteānce into your bodies, then seeing aer, meat, drincke, be not an humane soule, but other substances: either you two haue no humane soules, or your two bodies be capable of other substances beesides your soules.

You proceede, Sathan so possesseth, as Christ inuadeth his house, Argu 9 that is, dispossesseth him of his house, for so appeareth your mea­ning Ans. to be. Arg 10 This you say indeede, but proue it not. Againe Physia­logus pag, 78: will make it good by a distribution of inbeing: of all the kindes whereof he sees not which may be giuen to this reall possession.

I answer, The wicked spirit is in the bodie, Answere: as in a definitiue place. What now Physialogus? Are you struck dead with this answer, that you haue not one worde to say? Take hould then of an other argument if you can goe no further in this. Thus then you reason. If the diuel be really in the bodie, he is there either hipostatically, Arg. 11 Si dicimus eos reuera, (say they) in the mar­gine) atque a deo, autopro sopos ad esse et in esse: es­set hoc, vel hypostatice, vel formali­ter, quod est absurdum Ans: making one person with the bodie, or else essentially, to giue an essentiall forme to the intended operations. But he is in the body neither of those wayes. I graunt it, and yet you neuer a whit the nearer. I cannot but mar­uaile at your proposition, which though it be lame, is yet of admi­rable force. It is able to proue that the diuel is no where. For whersoeuet he is, he is there either hypostatically, or formally, but he is in no place either of both waies, and so no where. Nay your selues selues may be proued not to be in your houses, nor in any other place, because you make not one hypostasis with it, nor giue vnto it an essentiall forme. Make much of this proposition, as of a rare iew­ell. It is as good as Gyges his ring, by which you may goe inuisible: which faculty would serue you especially M. Deacon for many stra­nge feates.

In the twelueth place they argue thus. Arg. 12 pag 78: and 97. If diuels haue an essenti­all being in men, then their said being there may be perceaued by corpo­rall sence: but the latter is false, therefore the first.

Answere 1, Psa. 34.1:By this reason the Angels of the Lord pitch not their tents about them that feare him, neither doe they minister to the heires of saluatiō: for this cannot be perceaued by corporall sence. There be many things which we know and perceaue only by faith. 2 Secondly, the assumption or second part of the argument I denie: & affirme, that we may know by corporall sence, when the diuel is really and sub­stantially inherent within man, euen by the supernaturall effects & operations which Sathan in such case vseth to send forth: which as signes doe signifie and declare this inherencie. Now these signes or effects are by corporall sence discerned. That which in the generall we know and perceaue by faith, that in the particuler, touchinge this or that person, we know by sence.

Their last argument is this, The diuels violent rending & tearing with other the vnnaturall actions, Argu. 13 pag 79. may effectually be wrought in the man poss [...]ss [...]d, though the diuel neuer essentially enter into his bodie: this entrance therefore to such purp [...]se is needelesse, and so by consequence there is none.

The Antecedent or first part of this argumēt is false, Answ. as I haue shewed in my Narration page 21. But supposing it were true, we must know that it is a iudgment, or an increase of this said iudg­ment, when besides the vexation of Sathan, our bodies shalbe a re­ceptacle and place of aboad for the vncleane spirit to dwel in, which were made to be a temple for the holy ghost. And in this respect (were the antecedent true) there is sufficient to moue the Lord to permit Sathan to enter into the bodie, and Sathan to desire this entrance. And thus much for your first conclusion, no lesse absurdly handled by you, then propounded. Wherein I haue bene the lar­ger, because it is the maine poynt controuerted: and as it were the foundation or corner stone, whereon our whole buildinge doth stande.

Your second assertion is, That Diuels haue no true naturall bo­dies peculiar to themselues: which makes as much for his not beinge really in mens bodies, as it doth for his not being really in the Aer. But I will not follow you at euery turne, least I shoulde too much distrust the Readers iudgment: Besides I am more then half wea­rie already with your sense-lesse disputes. Many famously learned in the Church both of auncient time, and this present, attribute a kinde of bodie to Spirits, not grosse and palpable, as theis inferior bodies be, but of an incomprehensible subtilty: of which nomber are Tertullian, Augustine, Bernard, the Schoole-men, Zanchius with [Page 21] many others. These Discoursers take vpon them first to refell the ar­guments which make for bodies, & then propound some of their owne against them. In refelling Celestiall bodies they shew them­selues turne sick Euery thing wheles so about with them,pag 81: that they know not where they are. If diuels (say they) haue celestiall bodies and enter into men whose bodyes are Elementarie, then we should haue a compound supernaturall motion both in respect of the diuels, whose pro­per motion should be Circuler, & of the man whose motion is down right. As if intelligible [...]atures had a simple, and not a compound motion But it were tedious to vnfould all the fooleries of this argument. I will therefore passe ouer this, and the rest of their wise refutation, and come to their owne confirmation of it. How doe you prooue Spirits haue no bodies? First out of these wordes,pag 94 Luke 24:39, Spirits and diuells haue no flesh & bones, as you see me haue. This place proues no more but that they haue not naturally palpable & solide bodies like mēs. For otherwise you might conclude the Aer to be also voyd of bo­dy, because it hath no flesh & bones. Again say you.Hebrew 1:7: The Lord hath made his spirits his messengers, & his ministers a flame of fyer. From hence you must conclude thus, They which be as fyre haue no bo­dies: which is true if fyre it selfe haue no body: you see then how wisely you reason. Thirdly, which hath most force in it, and for which cause I take this paynes to repeat these reasons, They which can be in the body of a man to the number of a Legyon, that is six thou­sand, six hundred, sixty & six cannot possibly be any corporall substāces: Marke 5:9. But the diuels may be in the body of a man to the nomb [...]r of a Legion, that is 6666. & therefore they cannot p [...]ssibly be any corporall substan­ces. To let passe the proposition, though the moates in the sunne beames be bodely things, and yet it may be as many as a Legion in as narrow roome as a mans body: did you dreame you Discoursers, when you put downe this assumption? Or hath the truth wrunge from you a true confession whether you would or no? By this one argument, all the first part of this Dialogue, wherein you oppugne the reall inherency of spirits in p [...]ss [...]ssed bodyes is ouerthrowne. It can not be but lyars should be taken tripping at one time or other. Now then if you please, we wil proceede to your fourth Dialogue.

In the fourth Dialogue you contend,pag. 101: That Diuels cannot assūe bodyes vnto them. Where first it is to be obserued that this disputa­tion [Page 22] springes from the former, as the special from the generall. For bodily possession, say you, is eyther by assuming of a bodie, or by trans­forming. Whereby it must needes be, that all assuming of bodies, is bodily possession: but onely good Angels (according to the diuinitie of this dialogue) assume true bodies, and therefore they onely possesse: & so be the only tormenters of the possessed. Yet our Sa­uiour in freeing men from such molestours, doth vsually tearme them vncleane spirits. Such is the dotage which vnawares you run into, whilst with more confidence then with either wit or learning, you maintaine these absurd positions. Againe, this distribution of bodily possession, into assumption of bodies, or transformation, would tye all bodily possession to one of these two, (for the generall must of force be comprehended in all the specials) whereas corporall possession requireth neither of both, the spirits in their owne substance, without taking any forraine body, entring into such as be permitted ynto them. But so you be talkinge you care not greatly what you say, be it neuer so absurd.

In Math. 4. ver: 3, 5, 8, Angelogra. page, 556,To proue the affirmatiue parte, I meane, That Diuels can putt vpon them bodyes, that so they may visibly appeare vnto men, & fa­miliarly converse with them, I will not vse many wordes, nor au­thorityes, sith the matter is so euident by daylie experience.

August: super Gen 11 Aquinas 2, 2 q. 165, art. 2 A [...]g. 4: Mer­cer. in Gene. 3, 1: Bvlling. De­cad. 4: ser. 11 Calvin in Gen: 3, Danei Isag: part 2, cap: 34, Hunnius dis­put. 4 propo- 14, 15, Zanch. de operibus cre. part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Szeged, lo com, pag, 400 P: Martyr lo com. class, 1, sect. 15. et cap. 10, sect, 25, Piscator saith to this purpose thus. It must not seeme incredible, that the diuel hauing taken vpon him the shape of man, should come vnto men & haue speach with them. For that we see he did when he tēpted Christ. Neither must this seeme lesse credible of euill angels, then of good, by whom it is certaine this was often done: as the examples in Scripture doe testify. Otho Casman a late approued writer (who is very often quoted by these men, they thereby pretending that he consenteth with them, when he is as contrary to them, as light is to darknes) saith after this manner: It is so certaine that the diuels assume and moue diuers kindes of bodyes, diuersly formed, that it cannot be denyed. I om­mit heere to produce the testimonyes of other learned writers, as (¶) Augustine, Th [...] Aquinas, Mercer, Bullinger, Caluin, Danaeus, Hunnius, Zanchius, Szegedinus, with sundry others. Only I will adde a few lynes out of Peter Martyr that great learned man, that it may the better appeare vnto vs, that this is both possible and easie, and that this said assuming may the better be conceaued and vnder stood of the vnlearned. The diuels (saith he) can in very deede enter into a body made before, and formerly existing. (meaning into crea­ted or true naturall bodyes) Sometimes the diuell putteth on an aery [Page 23] body: but that he doth not forme or quicken as the soule doth our body: neither doth he make it to passe into one substance with himselfe, as did the word of god with an humane bodie: for diuels can put of those bodies, when they please. The diuel, as saith Augustine, fitteth vnto himselfe some body as it were a garment. Againe, These bodyes which the spirits doe apply vnto themselues, be aery: ibidem sect. 2 [...] for euen as water is congealed into yce, and sometime hardeneth til it become christall, euen so the aer where­with spirits doe cloath themselues, is thickned, so that it becommeth a visible body. But if it may seeme that the aer alone is not sufficient, they can also mingle some vapor or water withall, whereof colours may be made, for this we see to be done in the raynebow. The spirits doe thicken & engrosse these bodies, by straight trussing those partes togither, for oth­erwise they might not be seene or touched. And yet we say not heere, sect. 22 [...] that the diuell doth either create or make such things, but only that he is a mi­nister seruing vnto nature. Euen so the husbandman, when he tilleth and soweth his ground, & the gardiner when he pruneth and delueth a vyne, doe not create the corne or wine, but only doe helpe nature. So Augustine saith, that Iacob did not bring forth the colour vpon the sheepe, but did only rightly apply the formes & shapes. But it seemeth wonderfull how they can so speedely bring these things to passe. A skilfull artificer will worke any thing both handsomly & speedely. But giue the same instru­ments vnto an ignorant and vnskilfullman, and he will doe it neither redelie, nor yet very handsomely. Euen so any spirit, as a skilfull artificer will bring more to passe in a mynute, then by the accustomed order of nature can be wrought in a long time. Thus far goeth Peter Martyr.

The generall consent of writers as it should seeme, did wring from you this modesty,pag: 100. that you would vndertake no absolute de­nyall hereof, but only make a question of it. As if it were a small matter to make Question of thinges substantially true in themselues, and vniuersallye receaued. VVoulde you haue Christians be­ [...]me Academicks? or hath not the world had inough of Peter Lumbards diuinity? It seemes you haue little regard of troublinge the Church. I wish they may haue more which haue the allowance of such bookes to the presse, yet seing such lauish Discourses must cōe abroad, least any should be deceaued by your vaine glose, I wil proceede to examine your doing. The argument vpon which you ground, is after this manner. If the Diuel assume to himselfe a body, pag 100. 101 102, 103: & 104, 105. it is either a true body, or a phantasticall body, one created some time be­fore, or then newly, either the bodye of a liuinge man, or of a dead man: But none of all these, & therefore no body. I answer first, that he assu­meth [Page 24] both a true body, and a phantasticall body: sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. Secondly that he taketh a created body. If you demaund by whome? I answer by himself. You reply, that creation is proper to God alone: and I reioyne, that creation is twofould. One when a thing is made of nothing, as all thinges were in the first begininge, in which power no creature may chal­lenge any part: the other when bodies are framed of some matter already being: In this kinde the Lord doth vse the ministery of his Angels. If it seeme hard to giue the name of creation to this latter kinde: then I answer, that the body the diuel vsually assumeth, is an vncreated body. The matter of his body is from god & from his creation, it being made of aer thickned or of some such like matter. But the (¶) forme & in that it is a body, hauing the bignesse, pro­portion, colour, voyce & motion of a body, is meerely from the diuel. Here by I say it is plaine, that it is an vncreated bodyI doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bo­die, as the soule doth our body: bvt that frō him it hath the forme, fashion, and shape of a bodie. for­med by the diuel, but not created by him. For then he should make it of nothing. Neither is it created by god, the alone creator: be­cause it hath not theI doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bo­die, as the soule doth our body: bvt that frō him it hath the forme, fashion, and shape of a bodie. forme, nor that it is a body from him. And yet notwithstanding it is a thing existing in nature, before the di­uel assume it, as euery childe may perceaue. And that this spirits be able to performe we cannot but acknowledge, except we suppose them to be of weaker strength then other creatures. Doth not the sunne by his heate frame in the dunghill the body of a mouse, and giue vnto it also life and sence? Philosophie and experyence doth teach thus much. It were absurde to imagine Angelicall natures to be of lesse abillity then the sunne, especially in a matter of lesse dif­ficulty by somuch, as it is more easy to frame & assume a body one lye, then to quicken and endue it with sencible forme. And why should it not be as possible and easie for the diuel thus to compact and frame a body, for height, length, breadth, with all the partes & due proportions thereof of any kinde whatsoeuer, like to man, dog, catt, toade, &c. & enter into it, as to cause a tempest, & those other accidents whereof we reade in the history of Iob? Thirdly I answer that in apparitions,Ioh. 1. which are not properly called possessiōs, he neither taketh a liuing mans body, nor a dead mans, but only such a one as is made specially for that purpose, which when the er­rand is done, is dissolued into the same nature it was of before. And whereas you tell vs concerning the dead mans bodie, that if the di­uell should assume the carkas of a man lately deceased, he should appeare in a white winding sheete: I see no reason of this windinge sheete, ex­cept [Page 25] it be for you M. Deacon, to doe your penance in. But you adde, mens bodies were created for the Lord, & not for infernal spirits. True.page, 10 [...] To this end mans body was not created. But heerevnto hath man made his body subiect by his owne transgression. You say further. If the diuel can assume to him self a dead body, then we must needes ima­gine a resurrection of bodies before the generall iudgment, and that performed by the diuel, whereas that power is proper to god. This proposition is false. In the resurrection the soule and body shall be vnited togither, and by this coniunction the body againe quickned. Now this can only Iehouah doe. And after this manner many dead bo­dies arose and came out of the graues, & appeared to many at the resurrection of Christ. But heere is no such coniunction:Math. 27.5 [...] neither doth the spirit assuming, quicken the body assumed. The diuel is too weake to performe either of those. So that for any thing you say, he may take liuing or dead bodie, which he please. Thus we see there is no truth nor soundnes in this argument, but a meere tri­fling & abusing of the Reader, as wel concluding that neither good angels can possibly take bodies vpon them (contrary to the exp­resse truth in the scripture) as that the wicked cannot. VVhich kīde of affirmations would rather be confuted by good sound correcti­on, then by disputation of any man of learning, though as meane as my selfe: And this is all the wise proofe you bringe. The rest of the dialogue is spent in refelling the reasons for the contrary, which be cheifly fiue.

The first, Good Angels haue appeared in assumed bodies, and therefore wicked Angels may doe likewise. pag. 10: 5 Zanch. de o­peribus r [...]dē part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Piscator in Math, 4.3.

This argument you would shift of by diuers foolish vntruths, first, for that it consisteth not of things essentially alike in euery respect. VVhy Sirs? Haue you found out a difference in the essence of good and wicked Angels? All sound deuines hitherto haue made their difference only in their quality. But you are nothing dainty of such nouelties. Wel to let this passe: How shew you there is a diuers reason of them in this poynt? In this sort: The priuiledg of celestiall An­gels, is not incident to the infernall. To graunt you this, what doe you build from hence? But to assume a body is the priuiledge of celestiall angels. This is a second vntruth. You were ashamed it may be, to expresse it plainly (I would be glad to heare you were growne so bashfull) but it must necessarily be vnderstood. If to assume bodies were the celestiall angels priuiledg, the Lord which is the maintai­ner of thir priuiledges, would neuer haue suffered Sathan to haue [Page 26] entred into the body of the serpent. You are to vnderstand there­fore, that this assuming is not done or permitted by god for the be­nefit of the spirits, but for the comfort or discomfort of man. You add. Neither yet are they equall with the celestiall Angels in knowledge and power. It is ynough if the euill angels haue knowledg and power to compact and frame a body of the ayre and such like matter, & as a garment to put it on. And this knowledg and power they haue.

Fourthly, say you, the bodies wherein good Angels appeared, were not created by themselues, pag, 106: but by god. I answer, if they were such as were imediatly made of nothing, the Lord was the only workman of them: but if of some forebeeinge matter, their ministery might haue a place. But admit they were immediatly made, may not the Lord also create bodies for wicked spirits to vse in their speciall ser­uices? You imply he will not. It is presumption to search further īto God his will, then his word and actions doe warrant vs: and it is blindnesse not to acknowledg so much, as they leade vs vnto. See­ing then the Lord in iust iudgment permitteth Sathan to be a lying spirit in the mouthes of all Ahabs prophets,2 Thess, 2, 9. and to come in all de­ceiuablenes by Antichrist to beguile the reprobate: is it any thing contrary to his holy iustice and will, to allow him such meanes, wh­ereby he may accomplish the vengeance determined? Euen so in this case.

Fiftly you say, that howsoeuer good Angels haue appeared, ye [...] of euill Angels no example can be giuen.

The examples be more then the haires of your head. But you dare auouch any thing against the testimony of the whole worlde, christian and heathen. To omit auncient examples (least perhapps you say they be past date, the like being ceased in our times, as you doe say of possession) the apparition neere Augusta about the yeare 1503. vnder Maximilius the first Emperor is famous, which car­ried the resemblance of Margarite a Roth Abbatesse of Etestetten, Tho. Erastus de Lami [...]s, pag. 17. & could not only be seene and handled, but also speake most signifi­cantly. George Sabin, a man honored for his learning with the dig­nity of knighthood by Charles the 5. and sonne in law to Phil. Me­lancthon, Sabin, Elg: 1. Eleg. 3 Eleg. lib, 4 Eleg. 4 writeth of three apparitions in his time, one of sixe spirits in the forme of moncks, ferried ouer the Rhene by a fisherman of Spire: The second of a whole charriot full of monks: the third of a maid wooed by a spirit in the similitude of a man. And it is knowne what of late hath happened at Bertin, and other places of Saxony. At Spandaw in Germany in the yeare 1594. Sep. 13. the [Page 27] diuel appeared in the shape of a man,Gallob [...]lg. lib. 11: to a yong youth Gabriell Crū mer, offering him great ritches if he would promise to be at his pleasure, & this not once, but the second time. To him also appeared Gabriel a spirit in shew of a good angel, foure seuerall times. In the sāe towne the diuel did walke visibly in the view of diuers. It were end lesse to insist vpon rehersall of the manifould examples of this kīde. Yea something to this purpose may be sayd out of holy Scripture. Chrysostome writing vpon the patience of Iob saith, that he which brought tidings of the house, & destruction of his famely & cattle, was not a man, but a spirit. For if thou wert a man (saith he) how didst thou know that this winde came from the wildernesse? or if thou wert there, how hapneth it that thou wast not destroyed with the rest? Some thinge also it maketh (as I thinke) for confirmation hereof, that foure se­uerall messengers vse not only the same speach, but the verie same wordes: I onely am escaped to tell thee. Also that they come so patt one after the other, before the former had ended his speach,Iob. 1. v: 15 16.17.19: & that one of them saith The fire of god is fallen from heauen, and hath burnt vp &c. Piscator saith,in Math. 4 3. that when the diuel came to Christ in the wildernesse to tempt him, he came in specie viri &c. in the shape of a man, as angels are wont to doe when they appeare vnto men. And this we shall the rather beleeue, if we remember that the diuel is said to come vnto Christ, to haue speach with Christ: that the tempted him in communica­tion, Hither also apperteineth,1 Sam. 28:7:8: that witches are said to haue their fa­miliar spirits. Except the diuels did put vpon them bodies, and in them were familiarly conuersant with these wicked weomen, how could there be any familiarity betwene a diuel & a woman? Did not also the angels thus as oft as they did familiarly conuerse with men? Besides who knoweth not this to be verrified in daily expe­rience?de operibus red: part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 16 Zanchius hauing affirmed that (in his iudgment) diuels can assume bodies, and in them appeare, speake &c. vseth these words. More ouer there be very many, & those verie graue writers, who affirme that this hath fallen out often. Augustine writeth so of this matter, that he sa­ith it is impudēcie to denie it. And a little after Zanchius saith asmuch himselfe. Without the note of impudencie this cannot be denied. And who is there liuing that doubteth of the diuels appearing to some heere and there in visible formes and shapes at this day? Or that witches and diuels in bodyes assumed, haue familiar speach & communication togither? Doe we not daily heare of such occurrents? Doe not witches in all countries, make thus much knowne by their confessions? with many circumstances therevnto apperteyninge, [Page 28] which all tend to the confirmation hereof. Verily the diuel his assuming of bodies and appearing in them vnto men, is so manifest by experience in all ages, past and present, that we may wel say with Augustine and Zanchius, It is impudencie to deny it. Thus impu­dent are none, but those who either deny that there are diue [...]s, or witches. The lesser of which is horrible impiety. This then is an o­ther vntruth.

And heere (by the way) we may assure our selues that the Discoursers deny this latter, and are of opinion there a [...]e no witches, n r any bewitched. For if diuels cann [...]t assu [...] bodies, with [...]ut which they cannot appeare, nor haue any familiarity with men: if [...]econdly Sa­than haue no power to to [...]ment, vex or any way t [...] afflict t [...]e b [...]d [...] of man as these men also tell vs, in affirming that there is no a [...]tuall possessiō in these daies of the gospell how are there any who haue familyar spirits, whome the scripture calleth witches? Or that be afflicted in their bodies by the ministery of Sathan & mallice of a witch, which is that we call bewitching? This is something confirmed by their oft quoting of M. Sk [...]t his Discou [...]ry of witchcraft, and their commend­ing of that his exposition of 1. Sam. 28.8. &c. Hereby it is mani­fest that togither with M. Sk [...]t they hold that there are no witches, nor any at this day bewitched. They doe not indede deliuer this in plaine tearmes, least happely they should thereby irritate the reuerend Iudges of the land, by making them guilty of shedding much innocent bloud: but you see that from some of their publike asser­tions it is to be gathered by necessary colle [...]tion: and how they ap­proue of that booke which denyeth witches & witchraft, yea doe commend it: saying: that if without preiudice, and with a single respect to the truth, we would but d [...]liberately [...]ruse that priuiledged discourse, &c. then should we without doubt see a diabolicall discourse published with priuiledge.

Lastly you say that the aforesaid argument is a deceiuable Elēch, from may be, to being indeede. I pray you Discours [...]rs is not the ques­tion of may be? Is not your position in the begīning of this dialogue, whether spirits & diuels can assume &c. We vse then no El [...]n [...]h in the matter, but you a meere dotage, which like the butcher haue for­gotten the knife in your mouth. Besides, this & such like argumēts be rather ab posse, ad posse, then a posse ad [...]ss [...]: as a childe that hath learned but Sum & P ssum, may (helped a little) be able to tell you.

page, 107. PsAl. 78 49.The second reason for assuming of b [...]dies, are the words of the psalme: He cast vpon them the feircenesse of his anger, indignation, and [Page 29] wrath, by sending angels of euil. Heere you afford a double answer. First, that Angels of euil, be angels that were denouncers of euil, that is, Moses & Aaron, as Trem [...]lius interprets it, with whom you accord. Secondly that whatsoeuer these Angels be, yet they are saide on­lie to be sent among them, not into them, and therefore no proofe can be had from hence for assuming of bodies.

I reuerence the authority of [...]eme [...]ius, and dare not take vp­pon me to censure his doing: yet against it I might al [...]eadg the conse [...]t of many interpretors. [...]ut instead of them all the booke of wisdōe shall alone serue, which alluding, to this place expoundeth those Angell, [...]f euill, to be horrible & fearfull sights. Th y were scattered, chap: 17:3.4.14: (saith he) s [...]ar [...]ng b [...] [...]ibly, & were [...]bled with ap [...]ritions. Againe, terrible vi [...]ons and s [...]rrowfull [...] ghts did appeare vnto them. Againe, S [...]times they were troubled with monstrous apparitions. Hereby it is apparant that these ang [...]ls [...]f euil were cōstrued by the learned Iewes in auncient time, not to be Moses and Aaron, but wicked spirits. Secon [...]ly, that though they were not sent into the Aegyptians, (for then they should [...]aue possessed them, which neuer any affirmed) yet they were sent amongst them in terrible formes, which coulde not be but by assuming some sen [...]ble bodies, which is sufficient aga­inst you: and as much as is inforced from this scripture. And now let the Reader chuse, whether he will rather follow the booke of wisdome, or your booke of folly.pag. 108.

The third argument is: The diuell assumed the body of the Serp­ent when he tempted Evah.

You oppose heerevnto a threefould reply: First, If the diuel entred essentially into the Serpent, then either he became an essentiall Serp­ent, or the serpent an essentiall diuell. Surely you are bereft of cōmon vnderstanding which so confidently blatter out such palpable ignorance. Doth not god essentially dwel in all things? But is the crea­ture thereby made god, or God the creature? Secondly, you say that the serpent in this place is not a naturall serpent, pag 109. 110 111: 112: 113 but metaphorically the diu ll. It were tedious to refute particularly your childish proo­fes. If all the circumstances in G [...]nesis 3. could not induce you to acknowledg a naturall serpent, as the instrument of sathan in that temptation, yet the Analogie of the [...]econd Adam (which wrought our saluation by vntwisting that threed, which the diuell had spun to our destruction) ought to haue preuayled something with you.Mat. 3.16:17 Our Sauiour being baptised the spirit of god descended vpon him like a doue: and a voyce from heauen proclaymed him withall to be the beloued sonne of god. By which it is playne that as in ouer­throwing [Page 30] the first Adam there was a wicked spirit, so in establishing the second Adam there was the holy spirit: as to deceaue the first there was vsed a serpent, so to confirme the second Adam there was vsed a doue: as the first by the diuels fraud in the serpent, was quite stripped of all sauing graces, and disherited from beinge the sonne of god, so the second by the spirit of truth in the doue, was as it were visibly replenished with the fulnesse of all grace, and not only himself then solemnly annoynted to be the sonne of god, but also by whome all the Elect should be made partakers of the same dignity. From whence then I reason by Analogie thus. That if at the second Adam his installing into his office there was visibly and substantially apparant a Doue, wherein was repletiuely the holy ghost: then at the deceauing of the first Adam, there was visibly & substantially a serpent, wherein was definitiuely the wicked spirit. The nature of Opposites require that where one is reall, the other should be also reall. And the serpent & the doue be vsually in the scriptures set one against the other. And thus much for your secōd reply which you shut vp with a Probatum est, because Reignald Skot houlding the same opinion, his booke and the opinion it self, is very authentically priuiledged in our English Church by publique authority. pag. 115. As for M. Skot there is none of any sound vnderstanding, but he allows his iudgmēt better in a Hopground, then in a case of diuinitie. And as for his & your Priuiledg whereon you brag your selfe so much, take heede least you strayning your M. his countenaunce too farr, to beare out your absurdityes, he plvck not his cloath o­uer your eares.page, 116, Your third reply yealds, that Sathan was there togither with the serpent, but not in the serpent, and you would faine pr­ooue, The diuel could apply the serpents tongue to his purpose, though he entred not in essentially into him, no lesse then a Minstrell can make his pipes sound what he please, albeit he enter not essentially into the baggs. And in this merry conceyt you fling about your armes like winde mill sayles in a morryce dance, thinking your selues some iolly fel­lowes. But if the pride of your iollity be past, let me demaund of you this question, what is the true efficient of the sounde of the pipe? The minstrell, or the motion of the aer by his breath? You must needes answer it is the motion of the aer: for the pipe will sound as well by a paire of bellowes tyed at his arme, as by the bre­ath of his mouth: as is apparant in Organes and other winde in­struments.Arist. Phys. lib. 8. cap: 2. Beesides it is a rule in nature, That the mouer and the thing moued, must needes touch one an other without entercourse of any [Page 31] thing comming betwene. Now then if the piper be not the true efficient, it is no marueile if no necessity force him to creepe into the bag: but if the breath and the mouing of the aer be the true work­er indeed, that must both enter into the bagg, & into the pipe too, or else nothing at all will be donne. But you will reply, that the spirit may be likewise not the principall efficient, but remayning with out as the Minstrell doth, might send something into the serpent to cause such a workinge. I answer, the spirit is the principall effici­ent. For in supernaturall workes it must needes be the principall mouer should be supernaturall in regard of that worke. And there­fore seeing the wicked spirit is cheif agent, it is necessary he should be ioyned immediatly to that which is moued by him, without in­terposition of any other thinge. If then you can count your game, you shall see you haue got nothing by this reckoning, but only a vaine hope to make your selues merry withall for a time.

The fourth argument for assuming bodies is drawne from the Angels sp [...]aking in Baalams asse, Num. 22:2 [...] pag: 117. 118 which you labour to infringe two waies: first for that it was not an angell, but Ichouah himself which caused that speaking: secondly if it were an angel, yet he speakes no o­therwise then the former similitude of a Minstrel did declare. For the first, I answer you argue deceiptfully in opposinge Iehouah and an angell in this action, as if they could not be ioynt workers, Iehoua principally, the angell ministerially: especially seeing it is the man­ner of the scripture to attribute that to the Lord without mention of any other, which notwithstanding he administreth by meanes. Iehova (salth Moses) talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fier. Deu. 5.4.22. And againe after he hath repeated the ten commandements, he saith: These words Iehova spake vnto all your multitude in the mount &c In which he teacheth that Iehova was a Law-giuer, & nameth no other whose office was vsed therein: Yet Stephen saith, They receaued the law by the ministery of angels. And S. Paule: It was ordayned by angels in the hand of a mediator. Act. 7, 53: Galat. 3.19. You see then how trife­ling this argument is. But you will say: In the giuing of the lawe, the scripture doth warrant a ministery of angels, but in the matter of Balaam no such thing is any where taught. I answer, It is a good rule obserued by some for interpreting the scriptures Aequalis est doctrina, quae venit a phrasi aequali. Equall manner of speach doth af­forde equall doctrine. Beesides shall we thinke the greatest workes of all other, as the giuing of the law,Luke 22, 43: and the comfortinge of Christ himselfe were performed by angels, & that the Lord reserueth the [Page 32] basest and meanest actions to be done immediatly by himselfe.

Greate cause therefore had those famous learned men Lyra, Mar­tyr, Zanchius, &c. to acknowledg an angell in this busynesse, whose iudgments if you had wayed and followed, it had bene more com­mendation for you, then thus to roue at randome with your bolts. Further you vrge, It could not be an angel that opened the asses mouth, because the Angel stood before Balaam with a drawne sword in his hand to haue slaine him, and Angels can not be in sondry places at the same instant. I answer, Seeing the Lord did open the mouth of the asse, and Baalams eyes by angels as hath bene proued, that not one angell alone, but diuers were vsed in this businesse. He which hath so many thousand of thousands waiting vpon his throne for all deseignes, should he for defect of seruitors be faine to worke in his owne person? Whereas you say secondly, Admitting it was an Angell, yet he spake no otherwise then the similitude of a Minstrell decla­reth. I answer, If he spake in such sort, he must needes then really be in the asse, considering the true efficient of the pipes sound, is the mouinge of the aer (which is essentially in the pipe) and not the Minstrel. Besids in all things which are moued, the Mouer is immediatly applyed and ioyned vnto the thing moued. And why should Angels necessarily be sent in person to those seueral places where businesse lye, if they were able to accomplish them being absent? I passe ouer your ridiculous conceit,page 119. of the Angells essentiall conuer­sion into the asse, and how he was ridden, and galloped, & spurred, & stricken &c. which things no doubt, & more the asse had suffred, if either of you had bene in Balaams stead: For set a foole on hors­back, and he will gallop.

page, 120, 1 Sam, 28:The fift argument for assuming of bodies, is from the apparition in the likenesse of Samuell: which example, if you bounde your question with strict tearmes of a true naturall body, we vse not in proofe of this matter. For the sounder iudgment is, That apparition was a meere phantasie and illusion of Sathan. But if you intend (as in­deede you doe) that euil spirits take vpon them neither true nor phantasticall bodies, that is, which be truly materiall & visible, tho­ugh not compacted of flesh and bone, in which sence only we op­pose it to a true body in this place, then this example is of force to presse you. You incline to Reig. Skott his opinion who would haue it but a meere cosening trick of the witch at Endor, without any appa­rition at all either to the king, pag. 125. or to the witch. But this fancy wanteth sufficient foundation to stand on. M. Skott woulde prooue that [Page 33] Saule saw nothing, because he asked the witch what she saw, and what was his forme? It is true that Saule saw nothing at first,1 Sam: 28:13 14. for thinges were donne by degrees, as the text plainly shewes. Before the re­semblance of Samuell came vp, the witch saw other spirits like Gods ascending, then when they were vanished she beheld the forme of Samuell, yet not fully ascended: at which time she cryed out and answered Saul his demaund. After the Image was now perfectly come vp, Saul also himself saw him, as may be gathered by his bowing himself and falling downe: for otherwise Saul, was of that temper both in regard of his regall dignity, and his own naturall courage, that it was not his manner to stoope to nothing. If one then shall reason thus, Saul saw nothing when he asked the question, there­fore neither afterwards when he bowed himselfe, there is no validity in such a consequence. Therefore M. Skott failes much in his proofe: he hath not sufficiently shewed that nothing appeared vnto Saul. And admitting he had cleared that, yet this was but one part of his taske. He should also haue made it plaine that neither the witch saw any thing, beefore he had growne to this generall conclu­sion of no apparition at all. The diuel at this day visibly appeareth to many of our wise-men and wise weomen, when they which cōe to aske counsaile of them, neither see nor heare any thing, but haue their answer at the second hand from their mouth. Were it so then that Saul neither saw nor heard any thinge, but what he receaued from the witch, this notwithstandinge, there might well be an apparition: and without controuersy there was so. Otherwise how coulde the witch haue knowne Saul? and foretould those thinges which afterwards fell out accordingly?Page 125: To the former of these you answer (and what ye will say to the latter we shall know heereaf­ter) that she of herselfe might and did know him very well, howsoeuer she dissembled the same for the present. This is incredible.. That a sil­ly woman dwellinge far from the court, should so well knowe the King, that though he changed himselfe, put on other rayment, & went by night, accompanied only with two men, and thus did what he co­uld to be vnknowne, (because being knowne he could not bringe his purpose to passe) yet she should know him. Especially if withal we remember, that she was a witch, or at least reputed so to be, & that Saul had destroyed the witches, and sorcerers out of the land:pag. 126. and therefore she could haue small harte to looke the king so often in the face, whereby to attaine to this perfect knowledge of him. And where you say that the conferēce performed to Saul, was cuningly [Page 34] deliuered by the witch alone in her cell, she being a cunnīg Ventriloquist, as all Pythonists are: who can very hydeouslie speake in the bottom of their bellies, with an hollow counterfeyt voice, and therein by practise she was verie expert. I answer: you may tell vs also that the moone is made of a greene cheese, but we may chuse whether we will beleue you. Yea, I for my part will as soone beeleue this, as that For how could this silly woman (with all her cunning and craft) foretell, first the ouerthrow of the Israelites. 2. that it shoude be on the morrow. 3. that in that ouerthrow Saul and his sonnes should be slaine. Neither is it credible that she was able to make knowne to Saul the true cause of this feirce wrath of the Lorde, ready to be executed vpon him, and that his kingdome being rent from him, should be giuen to Dauid: all which be mentioned in this conference. Moreouer, if the witch did vse a meere cosinage, and that she herselfe did see nothing, it should seeme this art of sorcery, consisteth only in the opinion of men, and that in very deede witches can doe no more by Spirits, neither haue any greater familiarity with thē, then all others haue. But then wherefore doth the scripture condemne them for counsel­ling with spirits? Deut: 18, 11, 1 Sam. 28, 7, 8. and mention theire hauing of familiar spirits? For these reasons I thinke it stands better with reason to ioyn with the vniuersall consent of all the learned, then to follow M. Skott his singuler opinion, though the discourse be priuiledged. Hitherto for your refutation.

The shutting vp of this Dialogue alleadgeth some authorities for Not assuming bodies, none of all which make to the purpose. Pe­ter Lumbard propoundeth a double question,pag. 127, 128. Mag. sent, lib 2, distinct: 8. first whether diuels do substantially enter into the bodies of men: the second whether they essen­tially slip into their mindes. To the first he answers doubtfully, but doth not deny it as these Discoursers doe. To the second negatiue­ly. Then you produce the testimony of Gennadius, Beda, & Aug­ustine: which likewise deny an essentiall entrance into the minde. But what is this to essentiall entring into the body? These are two things distinct, and if you had not purposed fraud, you would not haue alleadged authorityes denying an essentiall entrance into the mindes, to disprooue essentiall entrance into the body. Touching the rest of your testimonies, I am ashamed to spend time in rehearsing them. I graunt with Chrisostome, the diuel cannot compell to sinne, but suggest: with Lyra, that he is not formally in any, as the forme of that body wherein he is: with Musculus, That he hath no absolute authority, but a subiected seruitude: with Gregory, that the power of Sathan is [Page 35] neuer v [...]iust, though his will be alwaies w [...]ck [...]d: with T [...]ls [...]egistus, that a [...] human [...] soule cannot receau [...] any other to mak [...] one pe [...]s [...]n with i [...] (excepted only the sonne of god) then an humane b [...]. I graunt you a l which the [...]e testimonies [...]u [...]u [...]n, but what game you therby for strengthening your cause? It is great folly to trouble your Reader with such impertinent wordes in the last place comes Reig: Sk [...]t to make all [...]ure. In [...]eede [...]is testimony is pregnant for you.page. 129. But in the wordes you cite out of him be conteyned two infamous sentences, That the Diu [...]ls cann [...]t by any meanes make them selues seene: that to assume a bo [...]y for appea [...]ance, o [...] other seruice, is all one a [...] if the spirit leaving the [...]ssence of a spir [...]t, sh uld become co [...]porall. For so is the meaning of his wordes. And what is his reason? why (forsooth) the diuel by his nature is a spirit, and therefore inv [...]ible & insensible, and so this is contrarie to his nature. By this reason there was neuer appa­rition of holy angels: for they be likewise spirits, invi [...]ble, insensi­ble &c. Surely they which made trees in times past to call parliam­ents, spake with as great probabillity, as M. Skot hath a [...]irmed this, as is apparant by that already set downe.

The fift Dialogue treateth of Transformation, the second speciall of Corporall poss ssio. As if either by assumptiō of bodies, or chaunge of forme, a [...]l corporall possession were wrought, as the nature of ge­nerals doth require to be fully comprehended in the whole sume of their specials: And as if all transformation were bodely possessiō, which is as vntrue, as the former distribution vnskilfull. The conclusi­on propounded is, That Spirits & diuells cannot essentially transf [...]rm them selues into any true naturall b [...]die. In which sentence these Dis­cours [...]rs vnderstand Transformation to be a perfect change of one [...]ssence into an other, as if a spirit vtterly chaunging his nature, & cea [...]ng to be a spirit should be made in verie essence a man, or some such oth­er thing: or else that he not transforming him [...]elfe but transforming an other, should change the essence of a man into the essence of a wo [...]fe, or some like nature In which is to be n [...]ted a double absur­dity. First that they di [...]pute as a [...]oubt, which neuer entred into a­ny man, for an [...] thing I can finde, to ma [...]e any questi [...]n of to wit, wh [...]t h r s [...]irits m [...]ght p [...]rf [...]ctly leaue their [...]wn [...] nature, & throughly change th [...]mselu [...]s into an oth [...] beeing. Indeed this were a happy Trans­formation [Page 36] for them, if they could cease to be diuels, and so escape theire condemnation. But neither wiseman nor foole I thinke, euer dreamed of such a thing. Secondly, that they conf [...]und all apparitions a [...]d appea [...]ances with their transformation: as if the diuel could not cast sensible shewes of things before vs, yea and true bodies themselues, without either transforming himselfe, or some other thing into them. And thus by this occasion they runne i [...]to their former question againe, sometimes making their Transformation to be nothinge else but an assuminge of bodies, eyther in truth, or in shew. Concerning which sufficient hath bene said in suruey of the former dialogue: And what the spirits power is in this behalf, is apparant by the Egiptian sorcerers rods, turned (at least in shewe) into serpents: by the froggs, and the waters turned into blood: by the apparition of Samuels bodie,Wisd 17 Math. 14.26 by those fearefull sights which troubled the Egiptians, yea by the disciples of our Sauiour Christ thē selues, which fearing they had seene a spirit, when they beheld our Sauiour walking on the waters, declare what the iudgment of the Church was then concerning apparition of spirits in sensible forms: neither doth our Sauiour reproue that opinion, but only shewes there was no cause of feare, he beinge no such as they imagined.

Therefore I neede not trouble the Reader with discussing, How the diuell is transformed into an angel of light, or how Nebuchadnezzar be­came an oxe, or in ripping vp any of that discourse following, onlie let vs consider that which is alleadged from our Sauiour Christes speach,pag 156. 157 Luk. 24, 38. A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me haue. VVhich wordes seeme to make against this assuming of bodies by spirits. humane, that is like, to mans. For if they doe take vppon them sensible humane bodies, how is the argument of our Sauiour firme? The disciples might haue replyed, that howsoeuer spirits haue not flesh and bones naturally, yet they assume humane bodies for a time, visible and palpable, & therefore the iudgment of sence could not be sufficient warrant to put away their feare. For answer heerevnto, Thomas Aquinas & other of the Schoole men think, our Sauiours argument to be of small strength, except some other addition be made vnto it. But herein the schole­men were deceaued, as also many others, in that they frame the ar­gument from part only of our Sauiours words, and not from the whole Our Sauiour doth not (meerely) reason thus, A Spirit hath not flesh and bones, But I haue flesh & bones, and therefore am no spi­rit, as I see the argument is vulgarly taken, but more fully in this sort, A Spirit hath not flesh & bones, as you see me haue, which wordes [Page 37] afford this syllogisme. A Spirit hath not in a true humane body pear­ced hands & pearced feete, as mine were lately on the crosse: But I heere present haue in a true humane body [...]earced hands and peirced fee [...]e, as they were a few dayes since vpon the crosse (whereof be your selues witnesses in seing and feeling me) and therefore I heere present am no spi­rit, but verily your Lord and Maister, who was lately crucified.

And this is strengthened by the words precedent to the aforesaide Scripture, and subsequent. Behould (saith Christ) my hands and my feete, for it is I my selfe: handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh & b [...]es, as ye see me haue. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feete. As if the Lord had said. You suppose this bo­die that stands thus on the suddaine before you, is not mine, but the phantasticall body of a spirit. But you are deceaued, for it is I my selfe. And that you may be cut of doubt, looke vpon me, and handle me. A spirit hath not a true naturall body, consistinge of flesh, bloud, and bone &c. but only the similitude of these things, and therefore this my true humane body you may easily discerne from such, if care and circumspection be vsed by you: View me therefore well, and handle me. The softnesse of my flesh, the hard­nesse, of my bones, that vitall and sweete warmnesse that is percea­ued in a liuing body, and is proper vnto it, which you may feele, doe witnesse that it is my body you doe behould, and not a spirit. But certaine may you be hereof, if you looke vpon my hands and feete, which you know (according to the scripture) were lately peirced. Heere I shew you them. Doe you not see the marks there of? and the hoales which the nayles haue made in them? we may add heerevnto the exceeding great ioy which did heerevpon arise in the disciples. For it followeth, And while they beleued not for ioy, that the Lord was risen, & wondred thereat &c. This excessiue ioy nothing caused somuch, as the behoulding and handling of the vi­sible and palpable markes of his peircing. Had not Christ shewed & they beheld and handled these bloudie markes, and certaine marks of Christs owne bodie, they had not vndoubtedly so abounded in ioy, but rather continewed still troubled, and in their former dou­bt, at least in part, and some of them, if not all. Hereby it is plaine, that this scripture maketh for apparitions, and not against them.

If the reason drawne from this scripture were of any validity aga [...] ̄st apparitions, then could not the holy angels assume bodies, neither had there euer bene apparition of them, which we knowe is ouer thrown by many places of scripture.

For the rest of the Dialogue we are behoulding to Lycanthro­pus, which hath kept so good D [...]rum in all the former Di [...]courses, that he neuer how [...]ed f [...]th like a wo [...]e ti [...] now. Your [...]a [...]ty is merueilous in speedy curing his [...]ease. If you procee [...]e with [...]e suc­cesse in this kinde, you wi [...]l quickly surpa [...]se the Ex [...]rc [...]i at Ma [...]gn [...]tton. Lyca [...]th [...]pus was but a [...]o [...]le, that he complaine [...] not himselfe at your first meeting It seemeth he might haue had present he pe. But take heede M. Ha [...]s [...]t be not sent from his Lord with Co [...]is­sion to exam ne the matter of so [...]e Legerdemaine. And thus ha­uing run the race of this Dialogue, you make a passage to the next comming now to Actuall P [...]ss ssion, which is the opposite member to Reall. VVhereby it will that neither the [...]iuell hath any reall po­wer without. For whatsoeuer he doth exer [...]is [...] outwardly, it is ac­tua [...]ly onely saith your goodly diuision, and so by your account he sha [...]l be reall [...] no where.

page 166.The sixt Dialogue handleth Actuall poss ssion, which they describe to be an extraordinary affliction, vexation, or to [...]ment, that Sa­than doth effectiuely inflict v [...]on m [...]n f [...]r a time. And this actuall affliction and to [...]ment very vnf [...]ifully they oppose to that is generally called poss [...]ss [...]n. Whereas whosoeuer is possessed according to that we define possession, the same i [...] actually, & eff [...]ctiu ly (as they spea [...]) afflicted, vexed, or torm [...]nted by Sathan. Where therefore either the spirit of god in the sacred Scriptures speaking of Demon [...]acks menti­oneth only their vexation by the spirit,M [...]th. 15.2 [...]. Act [...] [...]. [...]: or any learned writer, that maketh not at all against vs, or for you, as you very [...]illily pretend. The question and controuersy is, (whereof we haue spoken alred [...]) whether the diuel thus v [...]xing a Demoniack, be within him (defi­nitiuely) as we affirme: or without him, as you auouch: and not whether Demoniacks be eff [...]ctiuely vexed by Sathan wh [...]ch v [...]xati [...]n you opposing to that we call p [...]ss ssi n, see pag 38 3 [...], & [...]3. and by it going about to dis­proue reall possessi [...]n, doe therein like vnto him, that should deny a man to haue a soule, because he hath a body: and that by prouing he hath a body, will proue that he hath no soule. There be 2. parts of possession. 1. The diuel his inherencie in the body of man. 2. the diuel his vexing of that bodie.

This p [...]ss [...]ssion of diu [...]ls y [...]u acknowledging to haue b [...]ne in the daies of Christ: pag. 168. doe flatly deny any further continuance thereof now, in t [...]is [Page 39] time of the gospell. In the doc­trine, pag. 27, 28. Doctrine pag 31:

The contrary herevnto, to wit, the perpetuity of possession, I haue heretofore proued by Scripture, & by reason, & nāely thus.

All the diseases that sinne made the body of man subiect vnto, doe or may remaine so long as sinne remaineth in man:

But possession is a disease that sinne made the body of man subiect vnto.

Therefore possession doth or may remaine so long as sinne remaineth in man. And so at this day nay, vntil the end of the world.

This argument hath as yet receiued no answer from you,pag 174, nor I trust neuer shall. Instead thereof you haue fathered as absurd an argument vpon me, as euer I read: sending the Reader to the 31. page of the Doctrine, to secure him it is mine: and therevnto for­sooth haue you returned an answer. A very easie matter: euen as it is for one in straits to helpe himselfe with a lye. If at once (Gentle Reader) thou wouldest see cleerely as in a glasse, how corruptly these men deale with my poore writings, & shamefully abuse both thee, and me, but most of all themselues then cōpare pages 174, 175. of their Dialogicall Discourses, with the 31. of the Doctrine.

But for the further pursuite and enlarging of the aforesaide argu­ment, we are to vnderstand that all punishment due to the breach of god his law, is so long perpetuall, as the breach of gods law doth continew. Cursed is euery one which abideth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law, to doe them. Galat. 3:10 This sentence is perpetu­ally true to the ende of the world. And albeit they which haue put on Christ, and be dead and risen againe with him, are freed from this curse, yet all that be called, be not chosen: nor euery one that saith Lord, Lord, shall haue him to beare their burthen, but shall feele the waight of their owne transgressions. Beesides the faith­full are not exempted from the temporall chasticement. Neither are the written plagues only the stipend of sinne, but all other euils whatsoeuer not mentioned, are scourges prepared of the Lord for sinners. If thou wilt not keepe and doe all the words of this Law, the Lord will bring vpon thee euery sicknes, Deut. 28.58, 61 and euerie plague which is not written in the booke of this law. And that possession is a curse or pla­gue of god, it needeth no proofe. Yea a greuous one it is, that he which was framed the temple of the holy spirit, shoulde become a most horrible Caue and Denne of Sathan. From hence it must needes follow, that possession must haue a perpetuall beinge in the world, so long as men shall continue disobedient to god his [Page 40] most holy commaundements. Moreouer, howsoeuer Sathans kingdome is abolished for the behalf of the elect, yet in respect of the wicked he is a god of this world, 2 Cor. 4.4 Ephe. 2, 2: Ep [...] 6, 12 a prince of the aer, & a principallity, a power, a worldly gouernour of the darknesse of this world. Doth the sc­riptures giue him these titles as if he was a god without a people, a king without a kingdome a principallity without all sway and au­thority in his subiects? Therefore except you can shew vs, that none of the wicked now a daies be of sathans kingdome or that he doth rule his kingdome without tiranny, or that his tyranny hath not wayting vpon it possession, or that possession is now no punishment or chasticement for sinne: you shall deserue that as youre booke goes now abroad vnder priuiledg, so hereafter your selues should haue a priuiledg for euer setting forth any more bokes.

As the perpetuity of poss ssi [...]n is and hath bene proued by the holy scriptures, and by reason, so accordingly there haue bene Demo­niacks from Christs time in the successiue ages vntil this day. That such there were for the space of 13. hundred yeares from Christ, appeareth by the ecclesiasticall histories called the Centuaries, as witnesseth Cent. 2. pag. 110. Cent. 3. pag. 136. Cent. 4. pag. 439 440 Cent. 5. pag. 684 685. Cent. 6 pag. 341. Cent. 7. 158. 159. Cent. 8. 341. et 375. Cent. 9. 265. Cent. 10. 320. et. 337. Cent. 11 286 et 310. Cent. 12. 909. 910. et 932. Cent. 13. 631. This perpetui­ty is further confirmed by the testimonie and iudgment of these writers following: who for the most part make mention of Demoni­acks in their times.Apol. 1, Pag: 146. Iustine Martyr, saith, that the christiās ouer all the world healed very many that were p ssessed with euil spirits: which other inchaunters, In Apolog. coniurers, & sacrificers could n [...]t performe: & as yet (saith he) those m [...]n of ours proceede in their purpose. See also Iustine Mar­tyr in Tryphone We are a customed (saith Tertullian) to assaile diuels & to driue them away from men. And againe: We driue out ill spirits with out reward or hire. See Tertullian in lib. de Corona militis. For breuity (especially in so plaine a case) I will omit the other testimonies, & only name the seuerall writers with the booke and page. Cyprian ad Demetrianū tract. 1. et Sermone d [...] lapsis: et de Idolorum vanitate: et lib. 4. epistolarum, epistola 7. ad Magnū. Soz [...]m. lib. 4. cap. 16. Idem lib. 6. cap. 28. Canon. 90 Theodoret lib. 4, cap. 21. Chrisostome in Tom. 5. de i [...] comprehensibili dei natura, hom. 4. Augustine lib 8. de ci­uitate dei. cap. 26, [...]useb [...]us Caesariensis lib. 6. cap. 43. Bullinger in Math. 8.28. Pet. Martyr loc. com. Sess. 4. Cap. 9. Sect. 16: Chytre­us in Math. 8.28. Hunnius in Math. 17.15. Philip Melan [...]thon lib. [Page 41] Epistolarum. Chemnicius de Sacramento Ordinis. Beza hom. 26. in historiam passionis, aedit: 2. pag. 656. V [...]gellius in Thesauro Theologi­co. pag. 980. Danaeus in Marcū quest 38. Chassanion loc. com. lib. 1. cap. 17. Piscator in Math: 8.28. But what neede these testimonies specially of the auncient writers, sith the Discoursers themselues ac­knowledg a generall consent among the learned writers, as touch­ing the continuance of possession for about eight hundred yeares af­ter Christ and that in these wordes. Howsoeuer Iustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, the counsaile of Brachia, pag: 172. & eccles [...]asti [...]all histories doe all ioyntly auouch the continuance of p ss ss on in those t m [...]s and places wherein they conuersed: yet no one of them all doe challenge extraordina­ry power to disp [...]sse Sathan. But all these (say our Discoursers) were deceaued, either by the cunning [...]f the counterfeit, or by mistaking [...]me disease, not much vnlike poss ssion, for p [...]ss [...]ssion it selfe. Thus fell these good Fat [...]ers into a strange imagination of some actuall poss [...]ssion: there being indeede no such thing at all. Is it not strange that these two petty fellowes, that a [...]e euery foote stumbling, and haue as many lyes al­most in theire mouthes as they haue propositions, should so bold­ly controule these famous Doctors, and writers of Ecclesiasticall storie, and condemne them as men simple, deceaued, and not able to di [...]cerne of this matter. It seemes your Priuiledg hath so inspi­red you, that the certaine knowledg of these things is to be drawne only out of your brests. Let vs heare therefore the profound re [...] ­sons which these great Clarkes haue, against possession in these daies of the gospell. The first ar­gument aga­inst the per­petuitie of possession: pag. 168. Ans: 1.

The first is this G [...]d hath not avouched the perpetuity of poss [...]ssion in any part of his word, therefore it was temporary, and no way perpe­tuall.

Your proposition is false, For though it be not set down in expr­esse wordes: yet thence it is to be proued by necessary collection, as is euident by the premisses. Secondly, were it true: It maketh suffi­ciently for the perpetuity of possession, that by holy scripture it can be proued, that sometimes there was possession, and that were pos­sessed: except some scripture may be shewed for the abolishing of it, Otherwise I say, it remayneth still, so as it either is, or may be at this day.pag 170. A [...]gu: 2.

In the second place you reason thus. If no extraordinary power or meanes for expelling of diuels remaineth perpetuall, then neyther possessi­on it selfe remaineth perpetuall: But the first (say you) is true, therf [...]re the second.

Ans: 1. Math: 17.11 Mark: 9, 29The proposition is false. Because there was not only an extraordinary meanes for the expelling of diuels, which being temporary, ceased with miracles, but besi [...]es an ordinary meanes particulerly & by name appointed for the dispossessing of diuels, which remaineth vntil this day, and is perpetuall. Yea had we no such particuler or­dinance, yet notwithstanding we might at this day haue remedy against this extraordinary euill. Call vpon me, (saith God) in the day of trouble, & I will deliuer thee. Whatsoeuer you shall aske my father (saith our Sauiour) in my name, that he will giue vnto you. Pray al­waies, saith S. Paul. what? only in ordinary necessities? or else in extraordinary too, but yet without comfort of obtaining? hath the Lord bound himselfe from all extraordinary visitation till the ende of the world? Or if any vnwonted thing shall happen, is the chu­rch destitute of all remedy? Againe, we haue no extraordinary power remaining wherewith to cure palsyes, feauers, and other disea­ses sometimes so cured, and yet notwithstanding the said diseases at this day remaine. And why may not as well this disease be now, notwithstanding we haue no extraordinary power wherewith to heale it? who would vouchsafe to spend time with such disputers? Then to come to your second proposition, let vs heare your profe. Because say you extraordinary power of casting out diuels was peculiarlie appropriated to Christ & his owne Disciples, which is a lowde vn­truth,Mark 16, 17. vnderstanding Disciples as you doe, onely for the Apostles. Doth not our Lord say, These signes shall follow those that beleeue? in my name, they shall cast out diuels &c. Of whome speaketh he this? Of his owne disciples? Or of the seauentie? It is most manifest he speaketh of those which should beleeue by their preaching. Wee stand not vpon an extraordinary power for expelling of Sathan, & therefore I might well haue let this proposition passe, but that I would let you see your not extraordinary but ordinary blindnes.

pag: 176 Arg. 3:But to let this passe, your third argument concludeth thus. Things in themselues perpetually existing, haue in themselues an ordinary & continuall working: But possession of diuels (in these dayes of the gos­pel) is in it selfe neither ordinary, nor continually working, & therefore in these daies there is no poss ssion existing.

I answer that perpetuall existing is twofould: Naturall, and Po­sitiue. Things naturall which haue an inseperable operation accom­panying them, so long as they haue an existing, must needes also haue a continuall working, as the fyer must needes heate, the wa­ter moysten, &c. In this sence I doe not say that possession is perpe­tually [Page 43] existing, for then euermore some should be possest, which is far from my thought: but that men now and hereafter euen to the worlds ende may be possessed, when and as oft as the Lord shall please in such manner (that is with this kinde of correction) to chastice men: as appeareth by that here followeth. Things Positiue be such as not by nature but by ordinance haue their power and efficacie. Of which sort be Lawes and Constitutions, which once inact­ed haue presently existing, yet notwithstanding for want of Execution that sleepeth perhaps vpon diuers occasions for many yeares, haue not their continuall working Now possession being a punish­ment of sinne, and an ordinance of God, is of the seconde kinde, wherein if one shall exa [...]t one vsuall course to be pra [...]tised euery moment without ceasing, it is as much as to prescribe the Lord & ap­point him when and how he shall inflict his iudgments. What was to haue a more perpetuall existing amongst the people of t e Iewes then the religion of God in those holy rites & ceremonies which himselfe had giuen from heauen? Of what were they to expect a more constant and continuall succession, then of their prophets,Deut. 18.15.16. the Lord hauing promised he would rais [...] them vp a prophet like to Moses, in wh [...]se mouth he would put hi [...] w [...]rdes? yet we know what long interruption oft was made by the Idolatry of the people, the wickednes of t [...]eir kings, and at the last their deserued captiuity. Insomuch that the Prophet complayneth We see not our signes, there is not one Prophet m re, nor any with vs that kn [...]weth h [...]w long. psal. 74.9. Yea from Malachy til Iohn Bapt st, what long and deepe silence was the [...]e, as if the Lordes promises had beene fa len to the ground? So in the Christian Church during all the raigne of Antichrist, hath not the truth lyen hiddē in the wildernesse, as if it had bene vtterly extinct & departed from the earth? The Papists cry out vpon vs to shew the visible tra [...]t of our Church, and you would helpe them with armour, if this might be graunted: That things perpetually ex [...]sting by ordinance sho­uld also haue a c [...]nti [...]uall working. I hope nothing ought to be more perpetuall then faith, [...]et our Sauiour demaundeth whether at his comming h [...] shall finde it on the earth. Luk. 18. [...]. The second proposition also is worthely proued. For whereas you should shew that poss [...]ssi [...]n hath no rdinary working, [...]ou tell vs. It is now adai [...]s so vnwont [...]d and so ra [...]e [...]n exp [...]rience, as very hardly it is heard of in twenty y [...]res space. pag, 17 [...].

Ad [...]it this, I hope if it be heard of in twenty [...]eares it is not a matter so strange for the daies of the Gospell, as [...]ou woulde make it. Neither is twenty yeares space such a discontinuance, but that you [Page 44] might as well conclude the Leprosie, the Cancer, the Apoplexie, & s me other rare diseases did all likewise determine with the Apost­les time.

The fourth argument followeth. The manifestation of Christ his Deity, Arg. 4: pa [...] 179 & Ans 5 5. a [...] the confirmation of his glorious gospell, were the maine cau­ses of poss ss [...]n in Christ his time: these causes being c ased long since, how should th [...] effect it selfe be still continued?

Ans, This obiection I haue already answered in the Doctrine pag. 30 31. 32 where I shew t [...]at except these two were the only [...]au­ses of p [...]ss ss [...]on notw thstanding the ceasing of these causes, p ss [...]ss on may remayne, s [...] lo g as an other cause thereof [...]emayneth, to wit, sinne. That these were n [...]t the sole causes, you you selues d [...]i esse cōfesse, in calling them the main [...] causes, and the ma [...]n [...] e [...]s [...]f p [...]ss ss [...]on: & in affirming, that th [...] p [...]ss ssion of diuels were especially for th [...]se two endes. Indeede in your Answer page 67. (contradicting your selues) you say these were the two only end [...]s of [...]oss ss o [...]. But how prooue you that b [...] the Scriptures? Or who made [...]ou of counsaile with the Lord, that you doe so peremptorily and precisely put downe these for the s [...]le causes of this iudgment? It is not possible t [...]at this which you thus presumptuously affirme, Doctrine pag 31. 32: should be true. Sith (as hereto­fore I haue declared) there were possessions before either the gos­pel was preached vnto the Gentiles, or the Lord manifested in the flesh. Moreouer t [...]e sine of Demoniacks, without which they could neuer haue bene vexed by [...]athan, was a cause of possession, how then were the two aforesaide, the onely causes of possession? To the former of these reasons you answer, there were no p [...]ss ssions at all (for a y l ng time espec ally before the cōming of Chr [...]st. Ans. pag 68. A childish answer, s ing in m [...] said reason I haue made the c [...]ntrarie euident. Insteed of answering m [...] latter reason we haue a slaunder. You charge me to say, Ans. pag: 56 that [...]oss ss [...] n was esp cially and pu posely inflicted vpon men f [...]r sinne▪ and this l [...] [...]f [...]our owne making you lab [...]r to ouerthrow. Whereas I onel [...] a firm that besides the aforesaid causes, sinne wa [...] a cause, doctrine Pag 32 w [...]ich is th c [...]us [...] of all iudgments, th u [...] [...] alwa [...]e [...] respect not tha [...] [...]e [...]t after his owne g orie. page 179, Ioh. 12.31. principally bu [...] s [...] t [...]mes some [...] best kn [...]w [...] to hīs [...].

But cheifel [...] you groūd [...]he f nall determinatio [...] log since o Sathans power of p ss ssiō, vpō a blind [...]nde [...]stādig of these words of t [...]e Gospell. Now is the iudgmēt of this world: now shall the prince o [...] this world be cast out Cōce ning which whē I consi [...]er how many vaine wor [...]s & leaues be spēt, I call to minde the great paynes the Smith taketh in [Page 45] framing his Idolatrous Image How he workes in the coles, and fashion, th [...]t with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his a [...]mes: Isa: 44:12. yet he is an hungred, & his strength fayleth, he drinketh no water, & [...]s fame▪ For these Disc [...]ursers hauing framed an Idole interpretation in their owne braines, weary themselues to adorne it all that euer they may, though when they haue donne what they can it is no­thing else but an abominable frensie, I giue it no ha [...]er terme t [...]en it deserues. For to come to the matter, [...]hese not Ex [...]anours but Prophanours of God his truth would haue the casting forth of the Prince of this world by the death of Christ, to be nothing else but a fi­nall d [...]termination of Sathans actuall poss ssion, that is, That the bene­fit of Christ his death should onely pertaine to Demoniacks, men extraordinarylie tormented with the diuel. For the fruite of deliue­rance from Actua l possession bel [...]n eth onely to such kinde of men But by these mens diuinity, The casting forth [...]f the Prince of this worlde, is nothing else but a del ueranc from actuall poss ssi [...]n, & so this benefit of Christ his death shall be appropriated to men extraordi­narily vexed by Sathan. Are [...]our consciences so seated that [...]ou could be content to spoyle Christians of their cheifest comfort? But I neede not spend time in expostulating with you There is n [...]ne which loues the truth, but of himselfe will easily acknowledg what such deprauours deserue. It shall be enough for me, least any be deceiued by you, [...]o conuince your [...]alshood Our Sauiour sheweth by his owne expresse words, that the casting forth of the Pri c [...] of this world, should be the drawing of all nations vnto him for so he speaketh in the next verse. And I, i [...] I wer [...] lift vp from the earth, ver: 3 2: will d aw all men vnto me: which I hope is a more ample fruit of Sathans expulsion, then can be restra [...]ned onl [...] to men in vnwonted manner afflicted by him. Likewise the Grecia [...]s d si [...]e to s e [...]ur Sauiour, which oc­casion did moue this speach, doth ma [...]ifestl [...] declare th calli [...]g fo [...]th o [...] Sathan sh [...]uld [...]e the admitti [...]g of the G [...]ntiles into the kingdom [...] of G [...]. This also was that which the voice from heauen pronounced, wherein the nam of God sh uld h [...] glorified, and not the deliuerance of [...]me few speciall men, from this one parte of [...]athans t [...]rannie. Besides our Sauiou heere [...]elleth vs that a [...]ession and a most sol­lemne iu [...]gment should be holden, where in the might [...] Iehouah s [...]ts Iu [...]ge Iesus Christ is plaintiefe and Sathan defendant. [...]al [...]e thinke all this sollemnity ha [...] no other e [...]de but onely that Actuall poss [...]ss [...]o [...] might b [...] co [...]demned? Or rather that the Almi [...]hty God iudging the cause betwene his Elect and Sathan, did now in regard of [Page 46] his Sonne his merrite fully satisfying his iustice, giue sentence agaīst Sathan with his chosen, and thereby expell him from that kingdom which heretofore he had generally holden, that in al nations by the preaching of the word, children might be begotten to the Lord. This were sufficient to controule your wicked errour, yet because the matter is waighty, we will consider a place or two more. S. Paul to the Collossia [...]s explaineth this p [...]int most fully.chap: 2:13 And y e (saith he which were dead in sinnes, and in the vncircumcision of your fl [...]sh, hath he quickned togither with him, forgiuing you all your trespass [...], & put­ting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against vs, &c. And hath spoyled the principa lityes and p wers, and hath made a shew of them openly, & hath triumphed ou r them in the same cr [...]ss [...]. In which wordes, he doth as it were comment vpon this speach of our Saui­our decla [...] ng How Sathan is cast forth: what is the benefit, and to whome it belongeth. The manner of Sathan [...] casting so th is, by sa­tisfyīg the iustice of god, signifyed by can [...]elli g th [...] hand writing, & by spoyling principallityes & po [...]ers &c. Is the handw [...]iting [...] cancelled only for Demoniacks? That benefit is A qu ckning togither with Iesus Christ and the forgiuenesse of all tresp [...]ss s. Are the sinnes of demoniacks onely forgiuen, and they onely quickned? Nay many which are dispossessed a [...]e not quickned with Chri [...]t, not haue their trespasse forgiuen, but being emptie, swept, and garnished, are re­possessed with seauen worse diuels then they were at the first. Ex­cept perhaps the sentence was only terrible in the time of our Saui­our, but now after his death is no more to be feared, possession by your wise interpre [...]ation being fully determined. To whom this benefit belongeth, are they which were dead in sinnes, & in the vn­circumcision of the flesh. Are onely Demoniacks such? Is not this the estate of all the Elect before they be called? Thus much S Paul. In the Epistle to the Hebrewes likewise the same is most plaine, where it is affirmed,Heb, 2, 14:15 that Christ tooke humane nature vpon him, that in the same he might destroy through death, him that [...]ad the power of death, that is the diuel And that he might deleuer all them which for feare of death were all their life time subiect to bondage where also it is plaine how Sathan was throwne out, and that the fruit redownds to al that were oppressed with feare of death, which nomber is infinite, besides Demoniacks. VVhere it is to be obserued, how these Discoursers alleadginge this text, euer when they come to the fiftenth verse, which they s [...]e doth vtterly ouerthrow them, shrinck back againe, not daring to touch it, as if some scorpyon lay vnder this [Page 47] stone. which makes me thinke, they doe not so much ignorantly, as of purpose peruert the scripture. But let vs (by the way) see how they doe vrge this Scripture to their purpose. This word destruction (say you) cannot fitly be applyed to Sathan his power of obsession, pag, 185. but must necessarily be appropriated to his power of possessiō, which was not only much maymed, but vtterly destroyed by the death of our Sauiour, so as non can be possest now in these daies of the gospel. If this here said of the diuel is to be appropriated to the power of possessiō, thē hath Christ destroyed the diuel onely for Demoniacks. By this your interpre­tation also of the word destroy, none can now doe the workes of the diuel, none can at this day lye, slaunder, commit murther, whore­dome &c. For 1. Ioh. 3.8. it is said that Christ hath appeared to de­stroy the workes of the diuel, and thus you your selues translate the worde. Breifly none of the regenerate can sinne,pag 186. Rom: 6, 6, sith it is said the olde man (of such) is crucified with Christ, that the body of sinne mi­ght be destroyed. But to returne thither whence I haue digressed.

Lastly from the interpretation which you doe giue of Ioh. 12.31. it must necessarily follow, which you also boldly deliuer for tr­uth, that by Christ the power of possession was finally determined, & vt­terly annihillated, that an ende was made of this busines. And againe, that our Sauiour Christ put a finall end to the possession of diuels by his death and resurrection. Now how can this possibly be true, Ans. pag, 66: sith after Christ his death and resurrection many were possessed with diuels, as is plaine by the Actes of the Apostles? Beesides after our Lord was risen, he foretels that some beleeuers should in his name cast out diuels. Heerevnto you answering,Mark: 16:17. page: 197: graunt that there were indeed possessions & dispossessions, a time (that is a little time) after Christ his death & re­surrection, for confirmation of his glorious gospel, but none at all for the declaration of Christ his Deitie. But how is it proued? why M. Dea­con and M. Walker say it. That we may plainly see that this is an ab­surd shift, we must remember that the miracles wrought by the A­postles or others as well after as before Christs death, serued for confirmation of Christ his Deitie. First in that Christ is the subiect or matter of the gospell. That therefore which maketh for the confirma­tion of the truth of the gospel, (which the miracles wrought by the Apostles after Christs death did, by their owne confession) must nedes make for confirmation of this Christ, that he is the true Messi­ah, and Sauiour of the world. And if of Christ, then both of his Deity and humanity. For Christ is a person consisting of these two na­tures. Againe, the gospel teacheth the Deitie of Christ, whatsoeuer [Page 48] miracles then confirme the gospel, the same confirme Christs Deity. Moreouer, the miracles, & namely the dispossessions of the Apost­les, or of any other wrought after Christs resurrection, were wro­ught in the name of Christ, a [...]d therefore confirmed Christ his De­ity. Mark. 16.17 In my name (saith Christ) they shall cast out diuels. And this they should doe after his resurrection. I commaund thee (saith Paul) in the name of Iesus Christ, Acts: 16:18: that thou come out of her, & he came out. Tell me now ye Discours [...]rs, whether this dispossession of S. Paul and such like dispossessions,Actes 8.7. & 19.23, performed after Christ his resurrection, whereof we reade in the Act [...]s, made not for the confirmation of Christ his deity. Behoulde the palpable darknesse that hath couered you: which notwithstanding you [...]eele not, nor in respect thereo [...] keepe your selues still and quiet without stirring in your places, as the E­giptians did: but you strout it out, and wa [...]k b [...]l [...]lie, as in the clea­rest sunn shine, by so much more miserable then the [...]giptians were But if you will be so hardy, you must thanke your selues, if you breake your shinnes, for you can hardly breake your faces, and it may be this doth make you so venterous.

pag 182You prosecute your absurd interpretation of I [...]hn 12. further by conference of some scriptures, which either you doe not, or will not vnderstand; by a Resolution making little to the purpose, and lastly by the testimonies of diuers: wherein you haue a notable gr­ace, to abuse mens names and wordes contrary to their meanings. Bring one approued author i [...] you can, that restrayneth the castinge out of the Prince of the worlde, to the deliuerance of demoniackes, and to the ending or finall determination of possessiō: which if you cannot, what a shame is it, or rather a wickednes not to be borne, to foyst in the names of good Authors, and some scattered patches of sentences sounding contrary to their iudgments, to deceaue the simple, and to draw them into error? Are you men appointed to be leaders of the blinde, and doe you willingly digge pitts for them? The Lord deliuer his people from such pastors which stop theire mouthes with grauel instead of bread, and kill them with the poy­son of their owne erronious conceipts, instead of feeding them with the wholesome foode of God his truth. My purpose is not to enter any particuler examination of your allegations. For euen as one when he was inioyned to carry away a dunghill, after he consider­ed how huge and foule it was, neuer put to his shoulders, but ope­ned a passage to a riuer not far of, by the flowing wherof he swept it away: So I, when I perceaue how wearisome and vnprofitable it [Page 49] would be to ransack to the bottome this heape of trumpery, thinke it better, rather then to remoue all this baggage, in [...]tead of water to put her to it, which happely might make some speedy riddance or such stuff [...] [...]nd thus much for this Dialogue.

In this Dialogue of common experience, Whether Actuall Possessi­on of Spirits may b [...] or no, I expected some proo [...]e that the possessi­ons mentioned by Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, and so till our owne times, were all but counterfeyt, and therefore no reason to thinke any other of Som [...]ers at Nottingham. But as Apothecaryes boxes carry titles of A [...]oes, Styrax, Benjoin, and within haue no­thing but black leade, copporas, Ockar, and such trash: so heere we haue a title of common experienc [...], without any experience at all, not any one approued example once sifted and conuicted. Yet to examine such as you bring: First you will proue Actuall Possession cannot be, because as great or greater workes are done by nature, Art, page: 202. & Sicknesse. Surely this cannon makes a foule battery, not onely ouerthrowing this possession at N [...]ttingham, but all other elswhere in the world, yea those that are mentioned in the scripture. It be­hooues vs therefore to fortefy what we can against so daungerous a shot, or else all is like to goe to ruine. What then are the workes of nature? Diuers are reckoned out of Pliny, Strabo, and others, whereby you would conclude, that if the boy at Ma [...]gnitton had breathed out flames of fier, it had bene no worke of actuall possession, because Aetna doth so: If he had bene able to draw yron vnto him, in somuch that if your selues had come in place, because your faces are of this mettall you should haue sowled foreheads with him: yet this had bene no wonder, because the Magnes doth so: If by his imbracing one A. Walk [...]r he should so violently haue detayned him, that he could not possibly make one step forward towards Ireland, this had bene no maruaile at all, because the little fish Ech [...]cis is able to stay a ship of great burthen neuer so fleete vnder sayle. VVhy, you Discoursers, things are not maruelous, except to the ignorant, whē they worke according to kinde: but when they goe beyond their naturall abillity, though the actions be not comparable to others in nature, they are wonderfull. It is no strange thing for the Sunne to lighten the whole opposite face of the earth, and yet if Moses face shine, the people are afraid.page 205: Aug [...] [...]ui. [...] 24, ca [...]3 You remember out of Augustine other [Page 50] workes of nature very strange done by men. But what of them I pray you? Were Somers actions also naturall? Naturall actions shew themselues from the cradle, to the graue: whereas Somers before the time of his first vexation by Sathan could neuer doe any of thē. But you will say, that which is done naturally by one, by art and practise may be done by an other. It would be hard for you to pr­oue that those workes which Augustine mentioneth, could be imi­tated by any art. though I confesse strange things may be done by cosening and practise,Euseb: de pr. Euang. lib. 4: caP: 1 Chry. ad po­pul: Antioch. hom: 20 as Eusebius and Chrisostome doe both teach: notwithstanding they both acknowledg Actuall possession, which easely may be discerned from artificiall workinges. for in these be teachers, long exercise, some end of glory or gaine, with diuers o­ther circumstances, whereas the possessed respect neither profit nor credit, but fall into strange passions in a moment without schoole­maisters, or any former exercise. The Pharises were wiser then to vse this silly shift to discredit our Sauiour his miracles by: which was ready at hand, if it had bene of any force. Further say you, stanger actions often arise from meere naturall diseases. pag, 206. It is true, but because you shew not these things in Somers to haue proceeded from natu­rall disease, you abuse your Reader with idle wordes. It might be apparant to you they came not from disease, for that he was deliue­red from his vexation in a moment, without any ordinary meanes of phisick, as likewise Darling of Burton was, and the seauen in Lan­cashire. Moreouer, if their strange effects came from some naturall disease, then did they not counterfeyt. If they counterfeited, then had they no disease, but were in good health I trust. Reconcile thes togither I pray you: and if you will contend still for counterfeiting, giue ouer your prating of naturall diseases for shame.

Secondly you reason from the naturall power of the Diuel, that he cannot effect such things as are reported to be done by Somers, & therefore there was no actuall possession. And wherefore coulde he not effect such things?page, 208, Because say you the diuel cannot doe workes vnpossible in nature. Heere we must demaund of you what you me­ane by workes impossible in nature: whether impossible to the nature of a diuell, and nature generally, or impossible to the nature of the man, in whome he worketh. In the former sence, we know the Diuell hath a restraint:Marke 5, 4 in the second, he may inable a man to breake chaynes, which by his owne naturall strength he cannot possibly doe, & that is as vnpossible to be done by man, as any of the things we report by Somers. Now whether of these two meanings doe you [Page 51] follow? forsooth both: In the Maior the first, and in the Minor the second. Therefore I answer you, because you shoote in a bow with two strings, I will stand out of your way, as most perrilous arch­ers, able to kill the man in the moone. Againe, say you, in all sound Diuinity there is an impossibillity of such actio [...]s, b [...]cause the Diuel is no Creat [...]r of substances, no transf [...]rm [...]r of natures, no worker of miracles. If you would haue distinguished your tearmes, and then haue spēt some wordes to make plaine, that in these actions there was such a creati [...]n, such a transformation, such a miraculous working, as coulde not be incident to the power of the diuel, I would haue shaped you an answer if I could: but because you make a confused noyse, as if you were ringing of bees, you shall swarme them vpon what bough you will for all me. Nay but say you, if the diuel did such things once; page 209. he can d [...]e them againe. It may be he can, and would too, if he were at any mans commaund like an ape to shew tricks. It may be also that somtimes he doth them, though all the world heare not therof. That which you bring of his being too weake an Agent, pag: 210 for that he is not Omnipote [...]t, as if an Omnipotencie were required in these ac­tions, is miserable beggery, still crauing that which will not be gra­unted you. If you will not be answered, you would like importu­nate beggars be set in the stocks.pag: 211 Touching the apt [...]esse you deny to be in the yo [...]g man at Mahgnitton to those supernaturall actions, I ans­wer, There is little aptnesse in a stone, or in a man to fly aloft in the [...]er, yet violence doth make them doe that, vnto which they be not naturally fit. But what are those actions which could not and haue not bene wrought by spirits in mens bodies? Haue you forgotten how you would make vs beleue, that greater workes then any was done in Somers, are vsually done by nature, by art, by sicknes? Are mens bodies not capable of such workes of Sathan, as practise, dis­ease, or nature effecteth in them? For your application of matter & forme we haue spoken sufficiently in the question of assuming bodies. Surely your faculty in logick is exceeding great, which contrary to the iudgment of sence in proper obiects, and other things requisite rightly disposed, will force reason to a Non plus. O that you had liued in those daies, when they disputed whether Snow is white. No doubt by your good helpe the Academicks had preuailed,pag, 211. & 212. whatso­euer sence saith. But still you vrge the matter further by Divinity, Philosophy, Phisick, Law, Conscience. If Divinity the Mistres condēne these actions, you might wel haue spared the other fiue her hand­maides. But you are like new wine tunned vp in vessels, you must [Page 52] either vent, or burst. What then saith Diuinity? working of miracles is ceased long since: But the things wrought in Somers by the diuell were miracles, or else you say vntruly. If you be such vnreasonable beggars, that no answer will serue you, you woulde be cudgelled from the dore. For the handmaids I will not talke with them: their Mistresse hath receaued answer for all. Lastly to auoyd needelesse speach, I will not graunt you, neither shall you euer be able to wrīg from me, That diuels can bring to passe such things at their pleasure, o [...] if they wrought these actions in Somers, page, 213, that therefore they can stop the ordinary course of all other naturall actions, and ordinances ap­pointed by God. You were sick of a feuer, when you tyed these consequences togither. The Diuels power is a limyted power. He can not touch one haire of our heades further then his commission ser­ueth him. Thus much for the diuels power.

page: 214.Thirdly you reason from the distribution of actions, & causes of right iudgment. If (say you) these actions in Somers were true actions, then were they either naturall, or not naturall: and then either against nature, or besides nature, or aboue nature, to be discerned also by some rule of truth, which either nature affordeth (by inbred principles Theoricall, & practicall, or got by experience of sence, of History, of Induction, or of our owne Tryall) or else at least is supernaturally giuen vs: but none of all these were to be seene in Somers actions, and therefore no true actions. I answer, there was to be sene in him Actions against nature, as whē he went about to hang himselfe, though you fondly imagine it was no such action, because it was not effected: there were actions in him besides nature, when his face and mouth were monstrously dis­torted, one lip towarde one eare, and the other towards the other: there were actions aboue nature, in his strength, in his knowledg, in his sundry passions, as of a lump about as big as an egge mouing a­long his legg, belly, throat, and other partes so that this portion of your proofe is patched vp altogither with vntruthes. Now for your rule of iudgment, pag 21 [...]. you affirme, these actions of Somers couldnot be iudged by any Theoricall and Practicall principles. Your reason is, be­cause Theoricall and Practicall principles be only naturall, and Somers actions were supernaturall. Surely this might be the reason also of meere Naturalls. As if Rectum is not Iudex sui et obliqui. If naturall principles iudge what is accordinge to nature, the same principles shall also iudg what is aboue nature. Doe you thinke heathen Phi­losophers were not able to discerne what worke was supernaturall? Was Aristotle a foole in writing Metaphisicks? But what of Expe­rience? [Page 53] It is not vniuersall (say you) because diuers amongst you wher [...] the thing was done, page, 2 [...]0. did not acknowledg such experimented tryalls of an actuall poss [...]ssion. Indeed the Pharises if it could haue bene brought to passe, by no meanes would haue had the blinde mans eyes ope­ned by our Sauiour Christ. And in Nottingham it was apparant that Papisme, prophane life, & anger for hauing some of their frendes touched, caused some to oppose themselues. Then for the seuerall degrees of experience, It could not (say you) be determined by sence, be­cause the obiests of sence were deceaueable. I answer, you say vntruly: The obiects of sence were true obiects. For sence apprehendeth but the outward appearance, which semblance is true, though the inward substance be not that, which outward likenesse sheweth to be. Hath not the Lord set his bow in the clowdes, though it be but an appea­rance onely to sence through the repercussion of the sunne beames, in a subiect fitly disposed, and that there is no such thing existing really indeede. Doe not spirits appeare to men, though the bodyes they seeme to haue, oft be no true bodies, but onely carry the similitude and image of them? your other partes of experience be ydle, for History and Induction could haue no place in one present Indivi­duum, and Triall which consisteth in proofe of action, might happely be in Somers himselfe, but not in the behoulders. These actions then haue store of naturall proofe, howsoeuer your eyes dimmed through enuy or couetousnes and desire of preferment, cannot be­hould it.

After you come to your Supernaturall rule, from whence you would conclude, There is at this day no actuall possession, page. 223. Acts: 20.27. because S. Paul hauing shewed the Ephesians the whole counsaile of God, giues nei­ther Canon nor Counsell of Actuall Possessions. It is vntrue that you say. For as in visiting of the sick, and diuers other such christian duties, there is nothing expresly set downe, but is onely to be gathe­red by implication & sound deduction, so likewise in this of p [...]ssessi­on: Concerning which he hath generally admonished vs,Ephe. 6:11 To put on the whole armour of God. In which wordes be comprehendeth all vexation of Sathan whatsoeuer, and sheweth also in the words fol­lowing the remedy. Except you can make good vnto vs, that pos­session is none of the Engines to ouerthrow man withall. VVhere­as you require some precept of this matter to Timotheus & Titus, you are to vnderstand that the ordinary guift is not peculiar to the Mi­nister, but common to all beleeuers. And therefore no maruaile if there be no speciall precept of this, more then of visiting the sycke, [Page 54] redeming captiues, releeuing decayed persons, and such like: in which duties all Christians haue interest, and not onely the Minist­ers. Againe you say, that if perpetuity of Actuall possession be either expresly, or implicatiuely conteyned in the word, then also the miracul­rous faith is either expresly or implicatiuely conteyned in the word: page, 225: which is stark false, as you and your fellowes haue bene tould an hundred times, considering miraculous faith is not necessarily required for dispossession, as (God willing) shall be shewed more at [...]arge in the ninth dialogue. Thus then haue these men reasoned against experi­ence, and haue afforded vs three generall arguments to disproue all Possessions by, & as well all as that of Nottingham.

But seeing they haue talked to no purpose of Experience, I will in one word commend to the Christian Reader these Experiences following,doctrine pag 28. Inter Ep. Cypria. Ep: 75 beesides those mentioned in the Doctrine, for his better satisfaction in this point. And first of the possessed woman of whōe Firmitianus doth treat at large in his Epistle to Cyprian: an exāple out of the compasse of that time, wherwith these Discoursers would bound all Actuall possession. But what nee [...]e I stand vpon former times? If possession be apparant in these our daies, it must needes be that neither hath it ceased in ages past. To come then to our own times, & with one bush to stop two gapp [...] ▪ Examples we haue In our owne country, aa in Margaret H rrison of Burnham Vlpe within the county of Norfolk, in Kath. Wright, in M. Throckmortons children Th. Darling of Burton, the [...]eauen in Lancashire, I [...]ne I [...]rden the ser­uant of Symon Fox of Shadbrook in Suffolk, whose cause was hearde before the Right Ho: the L. Cheif Iustice of England at S. Edmonde bury the 12. of Iuly 1599. Ioane Nayler as was proued before the Right Ho: the L. Anderson Novem. 30 the same yeare. Susan B [...]y­ton of Saffron Walden in Essex, as is plaine by the euidence giuen a­gainst Alice Bentley at the Quarter Sessions holden at the afore­said Walden the 13. day of April 1602. which Susan was lately dispossessed, the meanes being ved which God hath to that end ap­pointed. Also in Tho. Harison of North Wych in Ches shire, & in Cle­mens Charles a maid of Woolroytch commōly called Wullage in Kent: both which be at this present very greuously vexed by Sathan, so as he that will may be an eye witnesse thereof.Gallobelg. lib: 11: Out of our owne countrey, as at Spandaw a towne sixe miles from Brandenburgh in Germany in the [...]eare (as I take it) 1594. the diuel did walke visi­bly, and possessed more then twenty men, uexing them in misera­ble sort. Yea he scattered in the publike streetes mony, boxes, golde [Page 55] & siluer buttons, and such like: and he that gathered any of these things was presently vexed by the diuel. Wherevpon it was forbid­den both in the schooles & churches, that none should take vp any such scattered things. The like were done by wicked spirits at Berlin in the same Marqueship of Brandenburgh: And at Fridberge a towne of the new Marchia, there were more then an hundreth and fifty men, of either lex, condition, & age, which were possessed with wicked spirits. These things are testified by D. Iames Coler Provost in Berlin, and M. Robert Coler, and M. Iames Pret [...]r Pastors of the Ch­urch in Spandavia. To whose Narration Balthasar Westphalus, and Iohn Muller Consuls of Spandaw haue subscribed.de Abdit: [...]er: caus. lib: 2 ca. 16: Iohn Fernelius a­man worthy to be credited for his famous learning, place, and deserued authority, throughout all Christendome: reporteth of two possessed, one taken in the night, when as by occasion of immode­rate thirst he rising out of his sleepe, and finding no drinke, bit of an apple that he hit on by chance, wherewit [...] presently he perceaued his iawes to be shut, & as it were strangled with ones hand, & with all, he being now possessed of a diuel entring into him, did seeme to behould himselfe in the dark to be deuoured by a mighty black dog which things saith he, afterwards when he was restored to his per­fect minde, he reported to vs in order. The other was a Knight his sonne, taken in such sort, that sometimes his left arme, some­times his right, sometimes one finger, one whiles one thigh, one other [...]hile both, sometimes the whole body was greuously vexed: which torment passed with so great swiftnes, & shaked him so vehement [...], that hardl [...] foure seruants could hould him in his bed. The most skilfull phisitions iudged it a conuulsion, hauing next affinity with the Epileps [...], and so accordingly directed their practise, but without an [...] successe at all. The reason was (saith he) for that we were all deceaued in the true iudgment of the Cause. For in the third moneth a wicked spirit was found to be the author of all the euil, bewraying himselfe by a voice, and vnwonted words & sen­tences both Latine and Greeke, although the sick party was igno­rant of the Greeke tongue. He discouered many secrets of them that sate b [...], and especially of the Phisitions, laughing that he had deceaued them in a matter of so great perrill, and that they had al­most killed that poore body with their vnprofitable medecynes. These examples alleadged giue vs euident proofe of possessions in these daies. Now let the Reader choose whether he will beleeue these testimonies and experiences, or the vnsauory and vnlearned [Page 56] disputations of these Discoursers.

pag: 22. [...].Hitherto of Possession, now they turne themselues to Obsession, vnskilfully opposed, as hath bene partly shewed, to Possession. For they which treat of these matters vse these wordes indifferently. Cyprian saith, And by the torments of wordes they are cast forth of Obses­sed bodyes. So Fernelius in the place before cited, And withall he be­ing now obsessed by the diuel entring into him. Cyprr. ad Demetri. De oper. lib. 4. cap. 10. Likewise Zanchius (as before we heare) speaking of diuels substantially entring into bodyes, calles it by the name of being Obsessed by diuels. And indeede Obsidere doth not onely signifie to beseige, and to compasse about, but also Te­ne [...]e, Occupare, Opprimere, to Hold, Poss [...]sse, & Oppress [...], as when Tul­ly saith, Cum is qui audit ab Oratore jam obsessus est ac tenetur: When the bearer is now p [...]ss [...]ssed and held by the Oratour. And it semeth that writers rather vse the word Obsessed then Possessed partly for cōfort of the afflicted, teaching them they are not absolutely in the diuels power, howsoeuer he thus furiously rageth in their bodies, but rather that he now seeketh to vanquish them, then that without all hope they be vanquished already: partly also for the better sound. These Discoursers in a priuate vnderstanding make Obs [...]ssion nothīg else but an outward assault of Sathan, which onely power they leaue vnto him now. And where it is obiected, This doth open a dore to Athiesme, they returne this imputation very wisely vpon the doctrine of possession: as if to teach both inward and outward vexation were a doctrine of more security, then theirs of outward temptatiō onely. It had wont to be an old said saw in Geomitry, the part is l [...]sse then the whole: but these men will refine all Artes, & teach vs a new, That the parte is more then the whole. And so let this memorable Axiome shut vp this dialogue.

Hauing bewrayed your great ignorance concerning the power of Sathan, you come to talke how this power is to be subdued: where­in you shew your selues as blinde, if not also obstinate and peruerse, as you haue in that already passed. Much lauish speach is in the be­gining, wherewith I will neither trouble my selfe, nor the Reader. Onely we may noate by the way,page 234. how vntruly you require for the subduing of astuall possession an extraordinary power: concerning which we shall see in that which followeth. Then you fling out, as youre custome is, against the worke at Nottingham, because (say you) [Page 57] Crying aloud, rending sore, page, 24 [...]. & leaving as dead be made vndoubted true signes of that dispossession: whereas the same things are seene in Mania, (and sometimes a Mania without them as in your selues) in Phrensies, in the Mother, in Convulsions &c. I answer, I neither make these the onely, nor the necessary signes of dispossession: for I know di­uers haue bene wrought without them: but I frame my reasō thus. Where these signes be, & a present deliuerance doth follow from those & former vexations by Sathan, vpon the request of God his people, that there is a disposs ssion. I confesse these signes particulerly may be in diuers diseases, but they are not from the diuel: neither is there a present restoring of the parties diseased in naturall sicknes vpon the vsing of earnest prayer.

Those meanes for dispossession which you stand vpon,pag, 244 et [...]. I allow not. They be not Rings, Rootes, nor Hearbes, that be of any auayle in this worke. Neither doe we vrge the fishes liuer nor Dauids harp, nor the musick wherewith Elishas spirit was calmed: and therfore all this as supe [...]fluous talke, nothing perteyninge to this cause I omit. But we cleaue onely to God his owne ordinance of prayer, holpen forward by the Exercise of fasting, which according to his gratious promise & mercy we haue proued to be effectuall. Against which, before you encounter with your full strength, you sporte your selues with a prophane scoffing in the end of this dialogue.in page, 26 [...]. And fi­rst, you wil needes wring from me whether I wil or no, that the worke done at Nottingham, was done onely by fasting. You are able to wring Hercules his club out of his fist. You haue proued your selues such exceeding sharp Logicians in the former Discourses, that I stād in great feare of you: yet now I must endure the brunt of it, come what wil. Go to then, bring forth your wringer. This then is it, That which made the prayer more forcible, & the spirit more apt, pag 257. 258 was the onli efficient cause of the supposed action: But your fasting made your praier more forcible &c. & the [...]efore was the efficient cause of the action. This is a wringer indeede. If Cardane were aliue he would register this Practicall Theoreme in the booke of his Subtiltyes. What a profit would this proposition well vnderstood, bring to many artificers? It would ease them of great expence in prouiding many tooles. The Carpenter might spare his axe and chisels, and goe to fell timber, square loggs, and doe his other workes with his onely whetstone. For that which makes the axe and chisell more forcible is the onely efficient of the worke. And so by this vnanswerable reason I am made a Montanist, a Papist, pag, 257: & [...] & one that makes fasting a sufficiēt meanes [Page 58] in it selfe, for suppressing of all suggested actuall sinnes whatsoeuer: which opinion though I am far from, yet if you wil follow my counsaile M. Deacon, for some things that I know, you should fast more then you doe.page 259, Againe you are instant to know, If prayer be a meanes, in what order of meanes I woulde place it. Not in that sure which you foolishly fancy to your selues, For what childe would esteeme of praier as a meere naturall action? page, 260 But this is suteable to your other blinde ignorances. Further you argue, that prayer can be no meanes, whether we respect the Sound, the Voyce, or the wordes: wherein you shew your selues no lesse voyd of piety, then you haue bene hither to of wit and learning. Can you not be content to reproch me, but you must needes open your movthes against the holy worship of God? Can you finde no other causes wherefore prayer shoulde be effectuall, but onely for a noyse that is made, or for some distinct voice, or else for certaine charming words? In which of these respects cō ­sisteth the power of ordinarie prayer? you must needes answer, It consisteth in none of them: Conclude then, that ordinary praier is but lip labour. Your audatiousnes is in tollerable: In this 260. page you carry your selues more like Athiests, then Preachers. It is a shāe your booke was not better examined before it was allowed to the presse. But thus hauing brandished your sword about your eares, you make an end of this foolish talke, and prepare your selues to other as good.

This Dialogue aymes at two poynts, That Prayer & fastinge be not established by Christ, pag: 263 as a perpetuall ordinary meanes for power­full expelling of diuels: That Iustifying faith apprehending some super­naturall power of God, doth not effect that worke. For the first, the Reader must take heede, he vnderstand not prayer and fasting, as I meane it, and we all vsually doe, for an effectuall ordinaunce of God to quicken faith by, which is our onely apprehender of God his mercies, in these and all other actions, but for a bare and meere naked performance of these workes of Fasting & Prayer: For so these Trifelers expound themselues,page: 292. some fifteene leaues after.

Which disputation might haue had some vse against Papists, that mainteine their Opus operatum, an efficacy of the worke done, for the onely workes sake: but in what stead can it serue against me? It may be they intended it against Papists, these Discoursers propoun­ding [Page 59] to themselues the generall doctrine of Spirits: but neither doe their arguments presse them at all, & besides they apply their wh­o [...]e cou [...]e of speech against that done at Nottingham. So then they dispute against me in worde, but not indeede, therby labouring to deceiue the Reader, not able, as they thought, to di tinguish betweene these two. If you had ment plainly, you would haue shewed in what sence you had dealt in this place: but it was shame [...]ull to ex­presse it, for so you should haue appeared to all worthy to be his­sed at. And therefore you deferd your explication til some thirty pages after, where no man would looke for it, that in the meane sea son you might seeme to be talking, and yet at last haue a runninge knot on your iugling stick to pray fast and loo [...]e with at your pleasure. Should any man bestow time against persons of such peruerse trade, that are corrupted in their mindes,1 Tim. 6.5 and are depriued of the truth? I assure thee good Reader, euery lyne seemes a page vnto me, yet least thou shouldst be deceaued by these Hu [...]sters dealing, I put my self to these paines. Wel then to com [...] to the first poynt, If you can say any thing, wherefore fasti [...]g a d prayer accompa [...]yed with [...]r [...]e t stifying faith is not a perpetuall meanes ordeyned by Christ for expelling [...]f diuels let vs heare what it is.

There is no commaundment (ay you) or cannon any where exstāt in all the Scriptures for t [...]e appr [...]bation of it. page. 264.

Because it seemes you haue bene seeking and can finde none, I will shew you some. Our Sauiour teaching vs to pray, And leade v [...] n [...]t into temptation but d [...]liuer vs fr m euil, doth therein teach vs to pray against actuall possession. It was an euil you confesse, where with many in his time and after were troubled. Neither may we thinke the forme giuen by our [...]auiour, is any thing defectiue, as if some part of our necessity were omitted. If then praier be a meanes to defend and preserue from a [...]tuall possession, it is also a meanes to deliuer from the [...]ame, if at any time we be ouertaken with it.

And seeing also possession is still remaining in the church, as hath beene proued b [...] vnanswerable arguments, it must needes be also, the remedy of praier is stil remayning, and warranted from hence. Againe,Math. 17.21. This k [...]nde goeth [...]ot forth (saith he) but by fasting and praier To this place you answer, That our Sauiour onely makes knowne the impediment in that action, but puts downe no commaundement. pag. 264: And here you condemne me of grosse ignorance that could not see this. I contrari [...]ise admire your superaboundant skill, that is able to ma­ke two thinges iustle out one an other without any opposition. I [Page 60] pray your great learning teach me (for of my selfe I can not conce­aue) How the presence of that thing should not be a meanes, an he­lpe, a furtherance, the absence whereof is a let, an hindrance, an impediment. Or how a defect can be reproued, but that a supply of the same defect should withall be commaunded. And how an euill can be perpetuall, as I haue shewed a [...]tuall possession is, & that the remedy should not also be perpetuall, considering the Lord is mor ample in mercy towards vs, then in iustice. Beesides, if neither we are to haue an [...] vse of fasting and prayer in the [...]e a tions, nor the Apostles euer vse [...] them in casting out diuels (at least we neuer re­ade that they did) how might the Church reape profit of this in­struction? Did our Sauiour giue precepts, that were vaine and su­perfluous? Or was this instru [...]ion proper to that one a [...]tion and neuer to come in vse afterwar [...]s; I beseech you make not dainty of your skill, but lighten my ignorance in these points.

page 265Moreouer, whereas you require some testimony for this ordi­nance in Paul his epistles, and for want of such doe therevpon con­cl [...]de that there is no such ordinance. I answer, it is not necessary we should proue this ordinance out of the epistles of S. Paul. May not warrant for it out of the gospel suffice? And cannons & rul [...]s thence for our direction therein? If you can proue that all the ordinances of God whatsoeuer, be conteyned in Paules epistles: I will eyther from thence proue this ordinance, or confesse that there is no such ordinance. Yet notwithstanding know ye, that where the Apostle speaking of the compleat armour of Christians against the diuel, requireth that we pray with all manner of prayer and supplication in the spirit, Ephe. 6:18. that from thence this ordinance hath confirmation. Let this then be a third place. And where you adde that the Ap [...]stle in the e­pistles to Timothy and Titus handles at large all Church offices and offi­cers, I haue already shewed that expelling of diuels is no peculyar duty of any Church officer: and therefore you haue no reason to looke for this precept amongst the aduertisements of their charge.

Againe you obiect S. Peter that laying op [...]n the perpetuall va [...]a­ries of Sathan to kill & deuour, he maketh n [...] mention of prayer & fast­ing, but only of a strong faith. I answer, The reason of this was, be­cause S. Peter was not aware of that variance betwene faith & pray­er, which your Eagle eyes haue espyed: who as it seemeth can haue a faith without prayer, and prayer without faith. He thought sym­ply as he had learned, that where [...]e spake of faith, men would also haue vnderstood all the helpes and furtherances of faith, & not by [Page 61] the name of faith destroy whatsoeuer might giue maintenance to it. But because you stand so strictly vpon the word prayer, take this for a fourth place, Is any among you affl [...]cted? let him pray. Shall we thi­nke that possession is no affliction?Iames 5, 13 Or that in this affliction onely we are barred from praier? Or if we doe pray, that it shall be to no effect. Now then you may see, that you casting your net, and for all your dragginge findinge nothing in all the canonicall scripture for this ordinance, it was not for want of stoare, whereof I haue giuen you but a tast that you drew vp empty to land, but because you had so man [...] floters in the top, and wanted leade to sinke it a conueni­ent depth.

VVhereas therefore you chalenge me for proofes of this in­stitution, these places may suffice for authority of scriptures. And might not those testimonies of antiquity, and of present pra [...]tise with the godly now a [...]aies content you, which I haue alleadged in the Doctrin, but that you must blazon me for a Braver in wordes,page, 265, wh­ich neither had brought any thing to purpose, nor possibly coulde bring Say you [...] w [...] wonder y [...]u blush not to braue out the matter, by pretending the authority of Scriptures, the testimony of fathers olde and n [...]w, the practise of the church, and the good successe thereof, to mannage the matter it s [...]lfe. I beesech thee good Reader let me by thy patiēce remember some part of that already set downe in the Doctrine, page: 55. wh­ereby thou maist better behould these mens vnhonest dealings, and whether I meerely pretend these things as they tell thee. First there­fore I haue cited Origen, speaking to this effect:Orig. in mat. 17, 21. Tertul. in apolog: & ad Scapul. cap: 3. Cyp [...]ian ad Demetri. Chrysost: tom 50. de incompre. Dei natu­ra homil 3. If at any time wee shall deale about the curing of the p [...]ss [...]ssed, we (continuing in prayer & fasting) may obteyne helpe from God for them: & shall driue forth the wicked spirit by fasting and prayer. Next Tertullian, who saith, We ex­pell diuels out of men, as is knowne to many. Then Cyprian, saying, di­uels are b [...] vs cast out of bodies possessed. Fourthly Chrisostome, out of whose testimony there cited at large, these wordes be part: So the fathers haue appointed, that men vex [...]d by the diuel shoulde be brought forth, that the people and all the citty being present, publique prayers mi­ght be made for them, that all with one accord might intreat the Lord in their behalf, and might striu [...] with strong crye, that the Lord would haue mercy vpon th [...]m &c Fiftly Peter Martyr, concerning men poss­essed, vsing these wordes We wil vse for them faithfull prayer [...], I say, Peter Matter p [...]t 4, cap. 9: sect 13. chemnis de sacra ordini [...] prayers most vehement, & supplications for th [...]ir recouery: In a w rd, this should be the m st laud [...]ble & wise course, that exorcismes at this day be turned into prayers. Sixtly, Chemnisius, who saith, That in the tim [...] of [Page 62] Chrisostome and Prosper the possessed were brought into the Church, and were oft deliuered by the common supplications of the assembly. Seauen­thly, Philip Melancthon making mention of diuers which were possessed, and namely of a damsel in Mantua, Phil. Melanct lib. epistol that had bene healed of that disease by the prayers of the godly, of whome he saith, Et adhuc viuite sana, and yet she liueth and continueth sound: which was 17. yeares after the cu [...]e Vsing further these wordes, Neither indeede doe I doubt but that euil may be taken away, and the diuels expelled by the prayer of the godly. And a few lynes after, I know many examples a herein it is certaine the prayers of the godly preuayled. Beza homil. 26, In histor. pass edit 2. page 656. Eightly Theod. Beza, writing thus, I know a certaine houshoulder in France indued with the kn [...]wledg of the gospel, and which had embraced the same: who when in anger he had giuen one of his children to the diu [...]l, ha [...] his son [...]e presently p [...]ssessed of the diuel: Vogell in the [...]aur then log. [...]ag. 980 out of whome after he was cast by the feruent and vncessant prai­ers of the church. Nynthly Vogellius affirming that for casting out of diuels, there is not a better and more godly way at this day, then that Ch­rist sitting at the r [...]ght hand of the father, be called v [...]on, not onely by the kinsfolk of the poss [...]ssed, but also of the wh [...]le church, with a feruent hart & be put in minde of his omnipotency & mercy, whereby onely at this day, the vncleane spirits are cast forth [...]enthly Danaeus saying, w [...]ere­fore by fasting and prayer (which he that prayeth doth) d [...]uels may be cast forth that is: Dan [...]quest 38 in Marc. with the long, continuall, & feruent prayers of the po­sessed man, Chass in loc, com, lib. 1 cap. 17 and also the church, as are th [...]se which are ioyned with [...]ast­ing &c. Lastly Chassanion auouching thus, This onely remedy remayneth to vs, whereby we ought to helpe these ki [...]de of me (viz. possess [...]d) worthy of commiseration, to wit that with feruent prayers we [...]ray for their deliueranc [...]. S [...] I heard that a D [...]m [...]niack was deliuered in a cer­taine towne within the Dolphyns prouince. These testimonies haue I alleadged in the Doctrine: and vnto t [...]ese can adioyne more. But to what purpose, these remayning vnanswered? Now then you Di [...]c­oursers, whereas I affirmed, that both the auncient Doctors, & the lights of our owne time did witnesse with me in this po [...]nt, was this nothing but a Thrasonicall vaunt, as you tearme it? Or hug [...] bravīg barrels, that would n [...]uer be set on broach? and proofes that did hae [...]ere in calam [...], cleaue so clo [...]e to the pen, that they could pr [...]cure no pub­lique passage? page, 166: Are most plaine and euident testimonies of truth to be shifted of in this manner? you are like the malefa [...]tors which knowing themselues sure to be cast by the Iury, refuse the ordinarye tryall by God & the country, and will be tryed by no other meanes but by God and the Queene: So you in a desperate case woulde [Page 64] gaine some time and daily of the verdict ready to condemne you, by requiring some other course, which you thinke is not present.

To the end therefore your notorious impudency may be had in re­membrance, let there be a publique instrument drawne to this ef­fect.

Be it knowen vnto all men by these presents, that Iohn Deacon and Iohn Walker, vnworthely reputed Ministers, hauing had the c [...]eare euidence of truth passed against them, and being neither a­ble to answer one word, nor induring to submit themselues there­unto, as they ought, are two shamelesse beastes, which with bran­ded consciences, and whorish forheades, haue soulde them selues to face out a lye, to deceiue the simple with. In witnesse whereof all the learned of this land, which shall consider the allegations a­gainst you, and your paltry answers, will in consent of mindes sub­scribe to these presentes, that they are true. Let this then suffice for the proofe of that I haue brought, and so I will proceede to ex­amine yours.

You cite M. Caluin against actuall fasting alone,pag: 226 as an effectu­all counterpoyson for the expelling of Sathan, as it is mainteyned by the Papists. What is this to me you Discoursers? Haue I any wh­ere said it, or shewed it by practise, that the very worke of fasting and prayer without faith is sufficient in this businesse? Or doth M. Caluin speake against fasting and prayer being ioyned with faith? What impudent men are these that dare offer such a thing so palpable to the view of the world? The hare is neere driuen that is faine for refuge to run betwene the hunters leggs, and your case is desperate, that seekes releife at such a testimonie. Then you cite M. Bullinger as if he also should say, that praier & fasting is not here prescribed as a per­petuall canon. I graunt as M. Bullinger vnderstandeth it, that is, It is not prescribed as a perpetuall cannon to exorcists. Our sauiour doth not here instistute a new office in the Church, but this makes nothinge against the common duty of christians, that they in their assemblies whether greater or lesse, should vse prayer & fasting in this behalf. So likewise D. Fulke is to be vnderstood,Rhem. t [...]. Math. 17.11. out of whome you cannot shew one sillable against these holy exercises of the congregation, but as they are appropriated to the persons of Exorcists.

After this dispute you fall a jangling against me, condemning me as a busie b [...]die for intermedling in this action at Nottingham. page, 26 [...]. But you might vnderstand if malice would let you, that I pressed not into this businesse, but was drawne into it. I tooke vpon me no fa­cultie [Page 65] aboue others, but was willinge after much intreaty to ioyne with my bretheren in so charitable a worke: I disordered no ecclesi­asticall gouernment of our Church, but being allowed a Minister of the Gospell, I did no more then my place would warrant. What meane you then vpon this occasiō to let flie at Christ his sacred dis­cipline?See pag 270. Is the disgracing of his ordinance that which must win you your spurs? I know the shadow of discipline is terrible vnto you.

But it were happy for you, if you might tast of her seueritie, that you might escape his, which accounts not mans negligence, & his winking at our crimes for payment. I will not presse you further this way. The Lord giue you harts of flesh, that the works of flesh be­ing destroyed in you, your soules & bodies may be safe in the day of his iudgment.

Whereas you cauill against prayer and fasting, that it is no mea­nes to expel Sathan,pag 271 because the effect doth not presently follow: what ignorance or proud presumption is this, when the Lord himselfe praieth, Not my will, but thine be done, the seruant should absolutely and presently exact the thing he craues, without respect of the lord his pleasure at all? When thou askest (saith Basil) that which is meete to aske at the Lord his hands, de vita solit. cap. 2 cease not till thou hast receaued it: perhaps for that cause be giues thee not presētly, that he may teach thee perseuerance, and that thou maist learne what the guift of God is, and when it is giuen thee thou maist keepe it with feare. Hither to goeth the proofe of the first generall argument against prayer and fasting.

The second is, That prayer & fasting haue no power proceedinge from them, page, 274: as praier is either vocall, or personall, & that whether we respect the natural guift, or supernatural, this being also either principall or instrumentall, and therefore prayer & fasting haue no power at all. For proofe of the assumption we haue a long discourse of six or seauen leaues to no purpose, but onely to spend time, of the cause of mira­culous operations, a thinge knowne to all, but entred into Diui­nity, and I thanke the lord not doubted of by me. To let goe therefore all your needelesse talke, I answer breifly, that the power pro­ceeding from our praiers was personall, (if yov take personall as you ought, and as learned men doe for an acceptation of our per­sons, and not for the principall inherency of this power in our per­sons) not of my selfe onely, but of all his faithfull people then assembled together, accepted by god the father in the person of Iesus Christ. Secondly that this personall power was supernaturall, dep­ending onely vpon god his institution, and promise made to praier, [Page 66] not vpon any naturall efficacie whatsoeuer. Thirdly that this po­wer was instrumentall, not principall. Fourthly that you most ab­surdly conclude of the premisses. That because this power is instrumental, therfore it is not personal: which both may stand together, and doe in all the children of god. But if you will take personal ac­cording to a peculiar fancie of your owne brayne, for a primary being of this power in our persons, then is your first distribution childi [...]h, not comprehending all the kindes of power, and so what soe­uer is built therevpon not worth a rush. But is not this a worthy argument thinke you, which would as well ouerthrow all efficacie of prayer whatsoeuer as that action at Nottingham? Surely you dis­pute as if you were Atheists. For admit all power of praier shold be either vocall or personall, and that it is effectual by neither meanes, it must needes bee it should haue no effect at all. O intollerable impietie

Like stuffe it is when you oppose the power of God, and the meanes, whereas both vsually concurre in all actions. You goe on,page 288: and will disproue, that prayer and fasting is not a meanes of apprehending the su­pernaturall power of God. But spare your labour: who hath affirmed it? I know no meanes of apprehending either his power, or other his graces, but onely faith. If you can disproue that this hand layeth not hold vpon the power of God, strengthned by his promise, whatsoeuer ye aske the Father in my name, that he will giue vnto you, pro­ceede on I pray you. Thus then you say,page 289. That this promise containeth not an absolute warrant for euery extraordinary enterprise: And herein I accord with you, That only those things are asked in the name of Christ, which are asked according to the wil of God, for his sonnes sake. But it is according to his will, that in all vexations of Sathan wee should call vpon him for helpe in the mediation of his sonne. Call vpon me, saith he, in the day of thy trouble, and I will heare thee. Psal. 50, 16, And our Sauiour teacheth vs to pray, But deliuer vs from euill. Whereupon, if it had pleased you, you might haue easily seene wee did nothing in this businesse this way, but for which we haue appa­rant warrant from the word. Yea further, we haue the plaine words of Christ for confirmation, where he telleth vs,pag: 291 Math: 17, 21. That this kind goeth not forth but by prayer and fasting. But because these words are oft alleaged, and being truly vnderstood, make much for this cause, I will open the meaning of them, as I now vpon more deliberation conceiue them. Something I differ from that which hitherto I haue followed, but I take it, this which I shall now remember, is most [Page 67] agreable to our Sauiours meaning: And I wil neuer be ashamed to reforme my iudgment. where I see truth doth ouersway me. Thus then I doe interpret them. Whereas the Disciples demaunded why they could not caste forth that diuel, Our Sauiour doth answer to this effect: Because (saith he) you are destitute of that faith & con­fidence which once you had,Math. 10. when I sent you forth to preach by two and by two, vnto the lost sheepe of the house of Is [...]ael. At that time I gaue you power ouer vncleane spirits to cast them out, and you proued the authority I gaue you not to be in vaine: but after that embassage was ended, as if your commission had expired with that charge, you now doubted, whether you might exercise the sāe power sti [...]l or no & whether I would be assistant vnto you in the like worke:Iames 1.6.7. by which wauering you could not receaue this thing at my handes, but depriued your selues of that confidence which you should haue had in this cause: which if it had remained firme and stable in you, though in quantity no more then a grayne of must­ard leede, there should haue bene nothing vnpossible vnto you, & this deuil should haue gone forthe at your first commaunde. This then was your first errour. Secondly you failed in this, that where­as your extraordinary guift wanted, notwithstanding you set vpon this worke extraordinarily: whereas in this case, you should onely haue betaken your selues to the ordinary course, which is fastinge and prayer: for this kinde of divel wherewith the childe is possessed goeth forth by no other meanes then the vsuall and common way of humbling your selues, and intreating the same with al earnestnes at the Lordes handes: vnderstandinge me of the ordinary meanes. This interpretation ariseth most properly out of the wordes with­out any violence: wherein the failing of faith in the disciples, is an vtter defect of miraculous faith: the vse of fasting and prayer is not an helpe to weake miraculous faith, which now in the disciples was none at all, but the ordinary meanes where miraculous faith fayleth.

These be the friuolous arguments, whereby you would dis­proue the efficacie of Gods ordinance for the castinge forth of Sa­than by fastinge and prayer as the meanes of wakening & strengthening of faith, to which the Lord graunteth all behouefull requests to his children. Now followes the second parte, whether Iustifyinge faith doth effect that worke. To which I answer. It doth, if you me­a [...]e, It effecteth by obteyning. For what shall we not receaue by Iustifying faith, so long as it craueth nothing: but that is waranted [Page 67] by the worde? It is our faith that ouercommeth the w [...]rld, 1 Iohn 5:4 & 2.14. Rom. 8:32. yea by which we ouercome that wicked one, that is, the diuel. He that spared not his owne sonne but gaue him for vs all, how shall he not with him giue vs all things also? Doth not our Sauiour ascribe many of his great wo­rkes he did, to the parties faith vpon whome they were done? Be of good cheere daughter, (saith he) thy faith hath saued thee. Math. 9.22 And that we may know this faith receauing his great workes, was in some a iustifying faith, to some he saide before he did the worke, Thy sinns are forgiuen thee. Now what doe you obiect against this doctrine?Math. 9.2 [...] Whereas the words of our Sauiour All things are possible to him that be­leeueth, make for confirmation thereof: you reply,Marke 9.23 pag: 294. This faith was not the Exorcist faith, but of the parties possess [...]d. I answer, we know no such difference, as it some one or two were Exorcists amongst vs, & all the rest of the people of other condicion, but the whole congre­gation is of one office, and one faith in this businesse, we be all ioint Exorcists, as I may so say, and by way of obteyning throwers out of Sathan. Againe you obiect, That if iustifyi [...]g faith hath this power, pag. 295 then it b [...]longeth indifferently to all the elect of God, which I yealde you. But then say you, They which cannot effect this worke, may do­ubt of their iustification. I answer, this obiection sauors of very gross ignorance. You should be able to teach others, that the Lord hath not tyed himselfe to one vniforme order in bestowing of corporall blessings, as if all his children should obteine all at all times. He hath not definitiuely set downe in his worde, what, and when he wil giue vs in this kinde, but hath onely promised them vpon this condicion, So far as the good of his children, and his owne glorye shall require. Therefore though he graunt these outward things to some, and deny them being requested to other some, this differe­nce is no cause we should stagger in our iustification. Beesides say you, If Iustifying faith were of this force, it would haue bene mentiōed in such places where the effects of saith are purposely registred. Proue that al the effects of iustifying faith are there mentioned particulerly & by name, else you trifle. Albeit S. Iames saith, If we resist the diuell [...]e shall fly: noting generally our victory against him,Iames 4, 7, pag. 296 &c. Ma [...] 16:17:18 not onely in his assaults, but also in his possessions Expelling of diuels mentioned in S. Marke, belonged to a miraculous faith which was peculiarly giuen to some of the Christians of that age, Doctrine pag. [...]3 Detection in the epistle; such as were hearers of the Apostles, and beleeuers by their preachinge: as heeretofore I haue shewed more then once. And therefore you might haue saued that labour in vsing so many wordes, & citing so many testimonies [Page 68] to proue the Sunne shines in a cleare heauen at mid-day.

The tenth Dialogue treateth of Miracles, and laboreth to o­uerthrow dispossession of diuels in these times, because such dispossession is a miracle, & miracles be expired long since. In prosecuting of which argument, it is strange to see how the Discoursers beate themselues with their owne rod. They would prooue vnto vs that miracles are ceased, & yet afford vs no small miracle in their owne persons. For is it not wonderfull, that men thinking themselues to haue some sharpnesse of wit, to be furnished with sufficient copy of wordes, to haue perused many bookes, and to haue gathered great variety of learning, after some long time spent in deliberation and conferēce, and then aduisedly committing to writing what they had cōceaued. Should notwithstanding all this, like men skarred out of their wits, and vtterly bereft of all power of discerning, take shadowes for bo­dies, bushes for men, chalke for cheese, and grope in the sun light, as in the darknesse. They haue shewed incredible blindenes in their former discourses, but in this booke of Miracles, it is Miraculous to behould the palpable errours they runne into. It may be they did of purpose herein obserue a decorum, that the strange handling of the matter, might be sutable to the title. But that I doe not seeme to charge them wrongfully, I will betake my selfe to the Suruey, first for more plainesse setting downe the truth in this poynt, and after rifle vp their pedlers pack of deuices.

A true miracle therefore breifly may be defined thus, That it is an hard and vn-vsuall worke, surpassing all faculty of created nature, done by the devine power to that ende, it may moue the behoulders with admiration, and confirme their faith in the word of God. These true Miracles be of two sortes, for eyther they be wrought by the Lorde himselfe without any apparant meanes to vs, or else are effected by the ministery of man. Of the former kinde was the bush that bur­ned,Exod: 3.2. Exod, 13, 21. 2 Kings 19.35: and consumed not in the sight of Moses: the pyllar of a cloude by day, and the pyllar of fire by night conducting the children of Israel out of Aegipt: the slaughter in Senacheribs host of an hundred fourscore and fiue thousand in one night: the star that directed the wise men out of the East,Math. 2 2: to the place of our Sauiours birth, & such like. Concerning miracles of this nature, if one shall demaund whether they be ceased or no, it is to be answered, they are not. For the [Page 69] Lorde hath reserued this liberty to himselfe, by extraordinary power to reueale his iudgments to the world, when and where it shall seeme best vnto him. And therefore our Sauiour speakinge of his comming saith, There shall be signes in the sunne, & in the Moone, Luke, 21, 25, 26. and in the stars, & the power of heauen shall be shaken. Shall we think these are no miracles? or that they be past, and not to come? Experience also confirmes the same. It were infi [...]nite to gather what hath hap­ned in all ages since the publishing of the Gospell. I wil remember onely one or two for example in our owne times. Was it not the admiration of all Christendome to behould that bright and cleare new star which appeared in the yeare 1572, continuing almost six mo­nethes? But to come to our owne home, was it not a greate mira­cle that at a place called Kynnastone neere Marcleech hil in the county of Heref rd certaine rookes with a peece of ground of twenty sixe acres, remoued and went forward the space of foure daies, remo­uing forty paces in twelue houres, & carrying great trees & sheep coates, some with threescore sheepe in them, ouerthrowing Kennastone chappel, altering two high waies nigh an hundred yardes, and where tillage ground was, leauing pasture, and where pasture, there tillage? yet all this was seene amongst vs the 17. of Feb. in the yere 1571. Therefore to speake in confused tearmes that miracles are ceased without distinction of their nature, is the parte of ignorante men, and of such as neither would finde out the truth, nor teach it: but only deceaue thēselues & other with general words.

That second sort of miracles, which is done by the ministery of men, are all of them wrought by a miraculous faith, apprehending the extraordinary reuealed will of God concerning some strāge worke, what, when & how it is to be performed. All which Peter Martyr distinguisheth by their natures, by their effects, loc. com, clas: 1: cap: 8, sect, 4: and by the speciall manner how they are done. By their natures, for that some of them are admirable for the very thing done, being so strange and great as the like is not to be found in all nature. Such was the stay­ing of the Sunne in the time of Iosua, and the turning back of the shaddow to confirme Ezekiah, and such others. Some are not maruelous for the greatnesse of the thing done, but for the manner v­sed in doing, as was the cloud and rayne of Elyas, the thundering of Samuell, and of the like sort. For such things are done naturally, but at that time were miracles in regard of the manner by which they were effected, that is, not by naturall causes, but at the com­maund and wil of the Saints. In respect of the effects, some onely [Page 70] cause admiration and feare, as the burning lampes and thunders in mount Sinai &c. some haue a deeper impression, partly for benefit, as the sick that were healed by Christ and his Apostles, partly in punishment, as whē Annanias and Saphyra were strooke dead at the wordes of Peter. In regarde of speciall manner of workinge, some were done by praier, as the dead childe restored to life by Elisha: Some by commaund, as Peter bid the lame man in the name of Ie [...]us Christ arise and walk. Some neither by prayer, nor commaund, but of their owne accorde, the Saints themselues occupied in som other matter, as when the shadow of Peter as he walked by did heale the sick: and the kerche [...]s & handkercheifs carried from S. Paul his bo­dy. All these done by the ministery of men are now ceased, for that the miraculous faith by which they were done neither is at this present, nor hath bene these many ages imparted to any. Thus then we see what a true miracle is, what be the diuers kindes, and which be remayning in the Church and shall continew to the ende of the world: & which at this time are cealed.

Now to come to the other poynt? whether casting forth of di­uels in these times by fasting & prayer be a miracl [...] or no To this I an­swer,Chrysost: in epist, 1. ad cor. cap, 2, hom: 6 Aug. de ver. relig cap. 25 it is not. Chris [...]stome [...]aith, That Miracles were not done in his time. And Augustine affirmeth, That Miracles were not permitted to continew to his daies, least the minde should alwayes l oke after vi [...]ble things, and mankinde should gr [...]w cold through the custome [...] these matters: by the nouelty wh reof informes time t [...]ey d [...]d bur [...]e. But what neede I cite authors for this, when as your selues mainte [...]ne strong lie that Miracles ceased togither with the Apostles? Wel then [...]e [...] vs [...]oyne heerevnto, That ca [...]ting forth of diuels by fasti [...]g & praier we [...]e vsed in the times of Chris [...]stom & August [...]ne, as we haue shewed be­fore by thei [...] owne wordes, which haue taught vs that their p [...]ss [...]ss [...]d were brought to the publique assemblies, & deliuered by the prayers of the congregation. Wherevpon it must needes follow, that this man­ner of deliuerance in Chrisostomes and Augustines iudgments, & so of the Church in their time, was no miracle. And the reas [...]n of this may be apparant by that description of miracles already set down. First because dispossession of diuels was very frequent & common in their daies. But things common are no miracles. For a Miracle saith Augustine, August de v­tilitate cred. [...]d Honorat, cap, 16 is an vnwonted thing: And therefore ( [...]aith he) they are not done in these daies, Because they w [...]lde not moue, except they were maruelous, neither would they be maruelous, if they were vsuall Secon­dly, for that the worke it selfe doth not make a miracle in respect [Page 71] of mans ministery, but the manner of doing, as hath bene shewed in the second distinction of Miracles. As for example, The cloud and the rayne sent at Elyas prayer was a miracle, because the Lord had reuealed it vnto him, and he had embraced the same by faith knowing when and how it should be sent. Yet when the Church of God in the time of drought and famyne, shall by publique praier obtaine cloudes & rayne, this is no miracle. As when Salomon saith,1 Kings 8:35: when heauen shall be shut vp, and there shall be no rayne, because they haue sinned against thee, and shall pray in this place, and confesse thy name, & turn from their sinne, when thou doest afflict them, Then heare thou in heauen, and giue raine vpon the earth &c. Doth he here pray they might be releeued by miracle? Nay, but sheweth what the ordinary course of the Church is in this case. So when the Disciples cast forth diuels by their myraculous faith, and the Church now a daies by fasting & prayer, the same worke in substance is done by both, but the man­ner of doing is much differing,S. Doctrine pag. 35 which makes a difference also in the Action, and causeth that theire worke was miraculous, & the same done by the Church in these times not to be miraculous. This little may suffice for distinct vnderstanding of this doctrine: which dili­gently obserued will preserue vs from those horrible down-fals into which these blinde Discoursers tvmble themselues. Now then to examine theirs.

First we haue a definition of a Miracle in generall, to be an extraordinary worke of God, pag. 306. &c. highly surmounting the whole faculty of eue­ry created nature, to worke admiration in the beholders, and to confirme their faith in the truth of Gods word. Next we haue it deuided into the seuerall kindes, whereof the one is a True miracle, the other a false From whence it must needs follow that the generall definitiō must also agree to a false miracle. And that therefore a false miracle is an extraordinary worke of God, highly surmounting the whole faculty of e­uery created nature, to confirme the saith of the beholders in the truth of the worde. But this is a thing most absurd once to dreame of. Seing then to make a Generall whose definition can not agree to the Specialls, is a worke aboue nature: and that M. Deacon & M. Walker haue created such a Generall,pag. 309. etc. I doe demonstratiuely therevpon cō ­clude, That miracles are not yet ceased.

Againe, whereas I affirme, That casting forth of diuels in these ti­mes by fasting & prayer is no miracle because it is done by ordinary meanes without the miraculous faith, (in which sence onely I vn­derstand meanes, the vse whereof maketh a worke to be no mira­cle) [Page 72] you keepe a foolish iangling about this, in three pages togither without either head or foote.page. 311, Onely when in one place you began to conclude, according to your absurd manner you oppose the su­pernatural power of God, to his appointed meanes, as if ther were deadlie feude betwene them, so that they must needes kill and de­stroy one an other. May it not be said, that Moses by his miraculous faith & his rod deuided the sea, as by the meanes, because the Lord in truth wrought the thinge by his owne mighty arme?

Moreouer to stop your brawling mouthes you haue beene tould,pag. 312. &c. that Casting forth of diuils in this sort, is a thing marueylous, but not miraculous. Which difference, if you were not miracu­lously depriued of common sence, you might easily perceaue to be no lesse then is betwene the Generall & the Speciall. Euery Miraculous thing is marueylous, but not euery Marueylous thing miracu­lous.genes: 43:36. Except it was a miracle that Ioseph placed his brethren accor­ding to their auncyentie, because the Aegiptians marueiled at it. Cato marueyled that one wysard, when he saw an other, could for­beare laughing, was this forbearance of laughing in the wisardes a miracle? If this might passe for currant, we should haue as many miracles as we haue fooles, and so the world full of miracles. But you will proue it by Hebrew that Marueyles & Miracles are all one, bec­ause Oth & Mopheth are the same. But first you should haue proued that all marueyles are eyther Oth or Mopheth: which you neuer goe about: and it were but lost labour you should. So then the whole discourse for nine pages togither, is an euident reasoning from the affirmation of the Generall, to the Speciall: as if one shoulde say thus, That which is a liuing creature is M. Deacon & M. Walker: But an Oxe is a liuing creature, and diuers others his coosen ger­manes besides: Therefore an Oxe by this Logike should be as wise as your selues. Surely you have found the Philosophers stone wh­ich is able to turne leade into gould: you can doe more then the spirits can: for you haue proued and I also beleeue it, they cannot tr­ansforme one nature into an other, which I see is within the com­passe of your Omnipotency.

You returne a fresh to Miracles wrought by meanes. Concer­ning which I tell you againe (for such importunate beggars wil not rest with one answer) that whatsoeuer is wrought by ordinary me­anes onely,pag: 321. &c without miraculous faith, is no miracle. Now if you cā shew that Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter and the rest wrought their admirable workes in such manner, then I will esteeme you for great [Page 73] wise men.page: 322. page. 323 You affirme that Dispossession of diuels were alwaies reputed true miracles in the Church of God: which I haue manifested to be false by the testimonies of Chrisostome & Augustine, whereas you are pressed by Exorcistes that If signes & wonders be true miracles indeede, then Anti-christ must also needes worke true miracles, to shift of this (which you can neuer auoyd) you distinguish clarkly of that which is not in the sillogisme, to wit of Miracles in generall. The syllogisme mentioneth onely true Miracles, & therefore your distinction must needes be, That true miracles are of two sorts, either true or false, (which is your former miraculous diuision) or else you leaue the matter where it was,page, 306: pag: 324. yealding that Anti-christ doth worke true miracles. But forsooth you will goe strictly to worke, and after some nipping disiunctiues, at last you discend to this, that If I wrought a wonder at Mahgnition, then I wrought an vndoubted true miracle. must you needes still inferre a Speciall from the affirmation of the Generall? You abound in such admirable conclusions. Where you say, that Expelling of Spirits, is no lesse maruelous now, then it was in the primitiue Church. If you meane the Church in the Apostles time, you say vntruly: It was done by miraculous faith then, it is not so now, which makes a difference in the worke, as hath bene shewed in Elyah his cloude, and that which is ordinarily obteyned by prayer. And this is all you can say to proue that Exp [...]lling of diuels is now a myra­cle: for which you haue not afforded the least coloure of any rea­son.

The rest of this Dialogue is spent in prouing that Myracles are ceased, wherein I might be silent, both considering Dispossessi­on in these times is no miracle, and therefore nothinge at all impeached by this discourse, and also for that I graunt the cealinge of miracles according to such distinction: as hath bene before sett downe, that is, as they be wrought by the ministery of man. Nei­ther doth any thing you bring weaken this truth, but rather much confirme it. Yet in handling this poynt you haue diuers vnsounde positions. As if there were no other ende of miracles, but the testifi­cation of Christ his Deity, & the confirmation of the Gospell, whereas Miracles doe as well confirme the Law, as the Gospell, Iudgment, as wel as Mercy. And the Lord alwaies hath & will testify his wrath from heauen against sinners,page 325. which will not beleeue the threatnings of his word to forsake their wicked waies. Againe, say you, Christs resurrection was the last Miracle for confirmation of his Deity. Then what was his Ascention into heauen? Is it nothing with you? It be­ing [Page 74] also confirmed that in these daies of Athiesme the Lord may and doth reveale his extraordinary power, for the terrifyinge of mens stony hearts. You answer It is an irreligious insinuation, & a gap for all kna­ueryes. but if you were able to weigh all things aright, you woulde see it were irreligious to sew pillowes vnder mens elbowes. And as for the gap to knauery, what window can be opened, when the mini­stery of man is wholly excluded, & these wondrous workes left immediatly to the Lord himselfe? you are mad when you see not the difference betwene the Papists dealing in this businesse,pag. 327. and that of the Church of God. D. Fulke doth worthely reproue their lying mi­racles, but bring forth one word out of him, wherein he giues the least check to this manner of work done by God his faithful people: against which you haue no lesse ignorantly, then proudly vaunted your selues like two mighty Goliahs.gage. 329. As for those Learned men which you challenge to mainteine this cause against you, would you haue them to strayn themselues with such tr [...]elers? It is inough for them to leaue such as my selfe,pag. 330. &c. vnworthy to carry their bookes, to lash such bayards. All your reasons against Miracles conclude on lye against such as are done by the ministery of man: and so likewise your testimonyes vnto which I willingly subscribe. Onely, good Reader, marke that D. Fulke (who is the fourteenth in order) speaking against an ordinary function in the Church to cast forth diuels,pag 333 meā eth a peculyar office of Exorcists, as it is in the popish Church, appointed to this purpose. There is no such office left by Christ: but that a faithfull congregation making suite to the Lord in the mediation of his Sonne, hath no promise to obtaine the deliuerance of their brethren from the vexation of diuels, it neuer came into his heart (for any thing I could euer see by his writings) to thinke. But these men according to their manner, alleadg one thing for an other: euery clod in the fallow, is an hare with them, and they can follow it with as full cry, as if the best game that is were on foote before them. Well now, Christian Reader, that I haue layd open ther dealing vnto thee, be thou thy selfe Iudge, whether in the begining my speach exceeded any thing or no. I doubt not, but thou thy self wilt be amased to see men so bereft of all iudgment: and that thou wilt behould in them a manifest example of that bewitching, where­with S. Paule did charge the foolish Galathians. gal. 3.1. I hope also thou wilt rather be a meanes to free these men from the snares, where-with thou seest them intangled, then suffer thy selfe to be intrapped with them. And therefore relying vpon thy Christian wisedome in this [Page 75] behalfe, I proceede to the last Dialogue.

The first part of this Dialogue is the sinke of all the former, being nothing else but a Recapitulation of them:page: 339: we haue proued the seuerall channels vnsauory ynough: I meane not heere to styr thē afresh. The second part is a Patheticall perswasion: Patheticall indede both to him that would reioyce at the infirmity of others, for it would make him to laugh: and also to him that greeveth at their har­mes, for it would make him to pitty you.page. 347. It is no discredite you Dis­coursers, that I am afrayd of, No scandall to zealous professours, No sus­pition of Conspiracy, No confirmation of the B. nor any other such fōd respects, that causeth me to be fliff in opinion. I hope the Lord will assist me (it is my prayer that he will) that I shall treade all these vn­der my feete, and greater matters then these if neede be, for his tr­uthes sake. But if any can disproue the actions that haue bene done for matter of fact, or any thing that I haue deliuered or taught, by sound doctrine out of the truth of God his worde, I will giue glorie to the Lord, & confesse my self to haue erred and bene deceaued, although for deceauing, the God of heauen & earth is witnes it neuer came into my harte. As for losse of mayntenance, & depriuation from Ecclesiasticall dignity, neyther doe these moue me one whit. This is your silly cunning vnder pretence of alleadging for me, to write your owne Apologie. You comfort your selues with a Discourse, That no man is able to make a flat nullitie in any mans ministery. pag. 349. 350 De­ceaue not your selues M. Deacon & M. Walker: The Church may depriue of their ministery such as by erronious crimes deserue it. [...]ay not the Church make a Minister that hath greuously offen­ded the congregation, & continueth obstinate, as one that is a Publicane & an heathen? Math: 18.17. Doe you thinke an Heathen may houlde the pl­ace of a Minister ouer the Church of God? Againe, such as making shipwrack of a good conscience are deliuered to Sathan, can they during their subiection be fit captaines against him,1 Tim: 1:10: to the people of God? The salt that hath lost his sauour, with what shall it be seasoned? It is good for nothing but to be cast forth, Math: 5, 15: & to be trodden vnder foote by men. How shall he reproue others, that is reprooued by all? How shall he which teacheth not himselfe, teach an other?Rom. 2, 21.22 How shall the knowne Adulterer commaund others not to commit Adultery? Let a Bishop be vnblameable, saith the Apostle:1 Tim: 5.2. which charge hath [Page 76] not onely place in his first Election, but also the whole time he contynueth in his office.Psal. 50, 16 Vnto the wicked (saith God) what hast thou to do to declare mine ordinaunces, that thou shouldest take my couenant into thy mouth, Seeing thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast my wordes behinde thee? For when thou seest a theefe thou ru [...]nest with him, and thou art partaker with the Adulterers. Therfore this consolation of yours will deceaue you.pag: 340 But you say, where God doth continue his gratious guifts in any, there ought to be also continued the execution of the guifts. This also is a rotten foundation. I doubt not but the false Apostles retayned still their guift of speach, wherein they seemed to surpasse S. Paul. Beesides a man may fasly iudge of his owne guifts. When went the Spirit of the Lord from mee, 1 King: 22, 24 Mica, 3, 6 to speake vnto thee, said Zidkyah vnto Michaiah? Indeede the Lord doth threaten that night shalbe to false prophets for a vision, and darknes for a diuination: that the Sunne shall go downe ouer them, & that the day shalbe darke. And I beseech you weigh but with indifferency (if it be possible in your own case) if in these discourses, The sworde of the Lord hath not beene vpon your right eye. Zacha: 11.17. All these things considered, stand not (I beseech you) in defence of errour and wickednes. Regard I haue stricken you, ra­ther vpon the garments, then vpon the bare skin. Indignation somtimes hath wrung from me sharpe speach, yet such as hath wound­ed no further, then for Schoole matters, except your selues will.

Receaue therefore the word of exhortation. Let your defence be confession: your reply, teares: your inueighing against others, I haue sinned: your suite for preferment, to be in the number of Gods children. VVhat if the Church sleepe in doing her duty? He that kee­peth Israell neither slumbreth, nor sleepeth. VVhat if the Lord also for a time keepe silence? Indeede, saith he, I held my tongue: & thou thoughtest I was like thee: Psal. 50, 21 but I will reproue thee, & set thy sinnes in order before thee. It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of God. Who shall pleade for vs, when all shall stand at the same barre with vs? The Lord graunt my wordes may haue due place with you, that insteade of prouing me a counterfeyt (which your discourses intend) you may gaine your selues true Christians, whereby your losse in fayling of your purpose may turne to your aduantage, & my griefe in sustayning so many reproches, may in the ende yeild me & all the angels of God, great matter of ioy.

In the meane season, I humbly thanke the Lord which yet at last hath opened your mouthes to acknowledge the truth in some parte. For proccedinge in your course, and comming to speake of a [Page 77] precompacted confederacy, towards the ende you giue euident tes­timony of mine innocency,page 352. affirming that Howsoeuer others esteeme of any compact, for your owne partes (you assure mee) you are very far from such a suspition, yea & this also you dare say for so many besides, as haue bene acquai [...]ted with my former sincerity, and vpright carriage, they are euery of them free from such a perswasion. And this onely, say you, is that which we entertaine, & very confidently hould for a truth, Namely that the gracelesse boy, did gracelesly counterfeyt, & knavishly beare the world in hand, he was really possessed of Sathan, when there was no such matter at all. But as concerning your selfe, we doe vndoubt­edly thinke, that the same was simply your errour in iudgment, but no purposed errour in your practise at all. This is your testimony. Seeing therefore you are so perswaded of me in your consciences, how cōes it to passe, that through your whole discourses you haue traduced me as a deceauer? And namely in your Answer, pag: 39. 40. where speaking of Somers his supernaturall knowledg, you shift that of, by ascribing his predictions &c: to some cunning confederacyes with me. Why should we wonder at all (say you) that two cunning company­ons consederate togither before, should conclude such a course betwene thē selues, as the one (by the helpe of the other) should prognosticate such strange & incredible euents, &c. Haue you there striuen against consci­ence? Or hath the truth heere preuayled against your willes? Sure­ly it is wonderfull that men seeking fauour by soothing, and hoping for some great aduantage by iustifying other mens indirect courses, should notwithstanding the B. his violent dealing, whether by im­prisonment, or by pretence of law whatsoeuer, notwithstanding al­so M. Harsnets authenticall booke, written for confirmation of the sayd proceedings, yea notwithstanding their owne endes, and long tedious paynes to compasse them, should I say, notwithstanding all these, after many discourses cleare me altogether of the pretended crīe and thereby withall shew that the Bishop hath dealt vniustly, M. Harsnet falsly,1 Cor. 3, 19. and they themselues wickedly in ioyning hands to oppr­esse the guiltlesse. It is the Lord which catcheth the wise in their owne craftynesse. Neither doe I onely in this your confession behold the vic­tory of truth ouer your selues, but am forced to prayse the Lord for his great goodnesse, which hath made the BISHOPE him­selfe (the greatest Aduersary to this cause) to subscribe to my vp­rightnesse in it. Your booke comes forth by his priuiledge. No doubt it was perused, & perused againe. It lay a long time in his handes. And who can tell whether this testimony be not his owne [Page 78] wordes set downe vnder your names? It may be the Lord hath touched his heart for that he did against me. And howbeit publique cō fession were requisite in publique wrongs, yet it is some ease to sōe mens consciences to make confession couertly. whatsoeuer therfore other men may thinke, That he would be farre from such acknow­ledgment, yet I wlll hope the best, as knowing there is nothing vn­possible vnto the Lord. Neyther skills it greatly whether he writt these very wordes or no, considering he hath allowed & approued them at least, in giuing them publique passage and priuiledg to thē. And therefore though S. Paul, when the Serieants were sent vnto him, refused to depart secretly out of prison, but as by publique authority he was cast in, so by the same authority he would be brought forth: yet I being beyond comparison inferior to him, will rest my selfe content in hauing my open iniuries satisfied, though but in this secret manner. How good and gratious is the Lord which bringeth forth the righteousnesse of his seruants as the light, & their iudg­ment as the noone day. As he dealt with our heade Christ in cau­sing Pilat to pronounce him a iust man, so he dealeth with his poore members accordinge to their seuerall degrees. Hee made Saul acknowledg Dauid more righteous then him selfe, & Agrippa & Festus to say of Paule, He had done nothing worthy of bonds. To this there­fore onely wise, & gratious, & Migh­ty Lord God, the father, the Sonne, & the holy spirit, be all honor & praise for euer & euer.

Amen.