HE challengeth to him selfe a singular allegation 1 gift to cast out Divells for vaine glory sake.

1. M^r Dorrell his profession is, that how­soever defense 1 it hath pleased the Lord to vse his poore Ministery of prayer, &c. in the dis­possession of sundry: Yet he doth not chal­lenge (neither ever did) anie speciall gift therein aboue the least of his brethren, or anie private Christiā; and his practise (an­swerable to that profession) doth manifest the contrary to that frivolous imputation. Which also may be witnessed by his letters to M^r Starkey in Lancashire, and to M^r Aldridge of Nottingham, by thousandes that have heard him in Pulpit disclaime such a gifte, by 16. Ministers in Leycester shiere that vrged him to goe to the 7. in M^r Starkeys house▪ by other Preachers, & by Darlings friends that could not entreat him to ioine with them in fasting, &c.

2. But admit vainglory (whereof yet God defense 2 [Page 14] is only Iudge) it may reprove the person, but not overthrowe the cause.

allegation 2 M^r Dorrell taught 4. to counterfeite, viz: Katherine Wright of Ridg way lane in the County of Darby, Tho. Darling of Burton in the County of Stafford, Mary Cou­per, & William Sommers of Nottingham. For the signes of possessiō & dispossessiō were alike in all. Therefore these 4. and 7. in Lā ­cashire were counterfectes, and taught by M^r Dorrell.

defense 1 1. Besides his Negatiue oath (which also Maister Browne. M. Porter. M. Eving­ton. M Brinsley 4. grave, godly, and learned Divines of­fered to confirme as compurgators accor­ding to the lawe) M^r Dorrell solemly pro­testeth, that he is most free from teaching any to counterfeit either possession or dis­possession. defense 2 2. In ordinary course of law the affirmatiue part proveth, but in this course the affirmatiue is suppressed, & the nega­tive enforced. For in this cause cōcerning a matter of fact, M^r Dorrell should proove that there was vndoubted possession and dispossession. But that will not be admit­ted. defense 3 3. The 7. in Lancashire are spokē of to no other purpose but to imply; that for the reason of like handling, if the other 4. were counterfets, then these 7. were likewise. Which M^r Dorrell graunteth & retorteth [Page 15] thus: If those 7. had the same signes of pos­session & dispossession; if they were cured by the same meanes, to wit, by fasting and prayer, and if they did not counterfet, then is it likely that M^r Dorr. did not teach the other 4. to counterfeit. But the 2. former are graunted to haue ben at least in shew. And M. Dorrell presumeth no counterfei­ting can bee imagined in them. Because then the L. B. of London, who hath labo­red (night and day) to prove the other 4. to be counterfeits, sent his pursivant for som to be examined, and addressed Harsenett his examiner, and Pigott his secretary to Chesterfeild in Darbyshire there to exa­mine Katherine Wright her possession, which was 12. years agoe, would not have lost so great a pray, having had a large dis­course thereof, but would haue made som shew of proofe or at least demaunded som answer from M. Dorr. touching the same, and charged M. Moore therewith (against whom hee wanted matter) or (in so long time of imprisonment) examined them partners in that dispossession) about the same. But (belike) the L. B. of London vn­derstanding 2. of the 7. were but 10. years old, & therefore could not possibly coun­terfeit so strange thinges; knowing Jane [Page 16] Ashton (an other of the 7) is repossessed, & by Popish Priestes made a spectacle to Pa­pistes; reading M [...] Starkey (the gentleman in whose house the 7. were) his confident lettre to the L. B. of Chester, who by the direction (as he said) of one in great place, (belike the L.B. of London) required true certificate; and hearing (it may be) the re­port of sundry of credit in Lancashire, thought that case to be cleare, and there­fore hurtfull to the rest of his proceedings defense 4 if it were drawen into question. 4. If many thinges were donne or suffered by these 4: which cannot possiblie be coūterfetted, then M^r. Dorrell could not teach them: if not them, why the rest? But such things he proved to be donne or suffered by Som­mers: and may be proved (if commission were graunted) by the rest. Therefore M. defense 5 Dorrell did not teach them. 5. If Maister Dorrell did teach all 4. why is not time & place (necessary circumstances) spoken of in the 3. firste supposed counterfeits, but only in the last? For if he did teach them, there must needes bee a time when, and a defense 6 place where, he did teach them. 6. The reason doth not prove that Maister Dorrell taught any to conterfeit: for by the same reason Christ may be convinced of the [Page 17] same sinne, which were impiety to admit. Sith sundry by him dispossessed had the like signes as our supposed Counterfeites had, Mar. 1.24.26. & 9.18.20.26. Lu. 4.35.

7 Indeed Mai. Dorr. graunteth that the defense 7 like handling may argue the same teacher or handler, as the like proper symptomes may argue the same cause. But any religi­ous and reasonable mā may argue the Di­vell to be that teacher or handler: conside­ring the signes of possession and disposses­session in these 4. were like to those posses­sed in Christs time, and some of them not possible to be counterfeited.

Catharin Wright deposeth counterfeiting. allegation 3

First her supposed feates were either im­possibilies,defense 1 or such as any (not wilfully bent to speak against his owne perswasiō) would say they were the effectes of an vn­cleane Spirit, and not counterfeitings: viz. 1. In her fits she was so oft cast into the fire and water, that shee was chained to a post. 2. She was cast into sundry wels, yet being sought and found was without hurt. 3. o­therwise (as by cutting her throate) shee would haue destroyed her selfe. 4. Trāces supernaturall. 5. Strength. 6. Knowledge. 7. Swelling so as her body and necke were swollen twise as big as they were wont to [Page 18] be. 8. A thing (as if quick) felt stirring vp and down in her body: and drink brought in her thirst (in most strange sort) sprouted out of the cup vp to the roofe of the par­lor. defense 2 2. Catherine Wright dispossessed by Prayer, was repossessed and so continued from the 18. to the 30. yeare of her age, or thereabout. In all which time it is marvel that none could perceave her counterfei­ting before Harsenet came, nor shee bee wearie thereof: sith thereby she is deprived of Mariage, and other cōforts of this life. defense 3 3. All this while she hath dwelled with her Father and Mother in an obscure place, where she hath not, nether can reape pro­fit defense 4 by her counterfeiting. 4. Since her cō ­fession, shee doeth, or suffered the same things still. Therefore to bee punished, or defense 5 to be reputed no counterfeit. 5. If she had not confessed, Harsenet, &c. threatned to burne her feet. But presently after she cam from the Cōmissioners she bewayled her defense 6 periurie. 6. Ma. Ed. Beersfoord examined vpon oath would have set downe some of the strange thinges he sawe, but Harsenet cast away the paper, saying, If you will have a miracle you shall aunswer it before defense 7 my L. of London. 7. But let it be admitted that she confessing the counterfeiting of [Page 19] impossibilities, saieth true. What is this to M. Dorrell, who had never seene her be­fore shee was brought to Maunsfield, (where M. Dorr. dwelt) by one Ma. Beck­ingham (Parson of Bilstrop) his appoint­ment, of whom helpe was expected, after it had ben sought for of one Arthur a Cō ­iurer: who, after he had raised a Divell (in a likenes not remembred,) was instantly apprehended by the L. Darcies meanes.

Katherine Wright hath deposed that at allegation 4 Maunsfield Dorrell bad hir answer in a straunge voice, and say Middlecub, when he should aske the name of the Spirit.

1. Mai. Dorrell denyeth that, or any other defense 1 such instruction, as he shall answere at the dreadful day of iudgemēt: which he thin­keth (all circumstances considered) shall countervaile her inforced oath, & the ra­ther sith none other doth witnes the same. 2. But this is to small purpose were it true:defense 2 it only sheweth that M▪ Dorrell taught her to vse some wordes in her supposed coun­terfeiting renued, which he calleth repos­session, and not her former feates. Which wordes a boy can teach her, wheras it pas­seth Dorrells skill to teach those straunge things spoken of before. 3. Kather. Wright defense 3 [...]fter she had forsworne her selfe, was tou­ched [Page 20] in conscience, sorrowfully confessed her periury, and was in most miserable ta­king through trouble of minde because of the same. Of her recovery I doe not heare.

allegation 5 Dorrell lay on Katherine Wrights belly, and was so foūd by one Beckingham a Mi­nister, who plucked him of by the heeles, & thrust him out of the Chamber. Which lying M: Dorrell hath deposed to haue bene, in imitation of Elias and Paule.

defense 1 1. In deed the L.B. of London examined M. Dorrell vpon his oath, wherfore he lay vpon or beside Kathar. Wright, & though M. Dorrell answered that hee did not well remēber the reason of a matter of no mo­ment donne 12. or 13. yeares agoe, yet the L.B. would needes haue present aunswere one or other, M. Dorr. thus vrged did an­swer, that it might be in some childish imitation of the Prophet and the Apostle, be­cause (at that time) he was yong in age, & Divinitie. But whē he had better thought of the matter, he remembred him selfe, re­turned withal convenient speed he could, and vpō his oath absolutely denying such defense 2 imitation, confidently affirmed, 2. That he lay not vpon her belly but on her side, and that was to helpe one Edward Loade [...] [Page 21] (who by him self tryed in vayne) to keepe her downe in her fitt; That Beckingham was not present when that lying was; and that many women (and amongst the rest M. Dorr. owne wife) were then present in the roome, which was no Chamber. All which M. Dorr. can prove sufficiently.

3. Harsenet was earnest with Kath. Wright defense 3 as to accuse her selfe to be a coūterfeit, so to charge helfe and M. Dorrell with this filthy shame: wherevnto she could not be drawen by any meanes. 4. But the allega­tion defense 4 admitted (though it be not cōfirmed by the deposition of any other then Beck­ingham) proveth not the matter of tea­ching to counterfeit, but onely depraveth the person which in deed can not be: and the rather because this shameles lyer shortly after his periury, went vp & downe the Country bereft of his wittes, and died in lamentable sorte. And yet Barlow, the L. B. of Cant. Chapleyne, could not spare so grosse a lye when he commensed Doctor, [...]uch is his charitie, such his divinitie.

Thomas Darling confesseth that he coun­ [...]erfeited. allegation 6

1. That Cōfession was inforced by Har­ [...]enets defense 1 harde vsage and threatning to whip [...]im, that he should be hanged as the Bur­gunnian [Page 22] was (to whom he was caried for his further terrifying when he was newly hanged in the streat) & that he should be burnt with a hoat iron in the forehead: & by cunning devices; as faire promises, and counterfeiting sundry letters from Maister Dorrell to perswade him to confesse. As the boy avouched by word and writing as soone as hee gott out of the L. B. of Lon­dons house: and stoode to it, though after­ward the L.B. kept him (being about 14. yeares old) in the counter in South warke 7. weeks togeather, and in baile til the day defense 2 of hearing. 2. The things which he did or suffered in his fits cānot be coūterfeited viz. 1. Such swelling that his dublet but­tons would breake and the aglet holes of his dublet & breeches, though sett on and made strong for the purpose. 2. Superna­turall strenght so as 2. strong men could not hold him down lying on a bed, he be­ing about 12. yeares old. 3. In traunces he vttered cōtinued speaches w^th his mouth wide open. 4. In many of his fits his armes & shoulder bones were thrust out of ioynt: yet presently after the fits he had the vse of them againe. 5. He was lame, so as a strong man was hired to carie him for 12. weeks of 17. vntill he was dispossessed, and then [Page 23] he rose and walked. 3. Alice Goodridge defense 3 (a witche) confessed the time, cause, and manner of his bewitching. For which Iudge Anderson (after a verdict) gave sen­tence vpon her. 4. But suppose hee coun­terfeited,defense 4 yet M. Dor. simplicitie rather thē imposture is to be imagined of indifferent men. Sith Darling never did nor would confesse, but ever denied that M^r Dorrell did teach him: his being in prison, and so long vnder baile at London, and his often examination notwithstanding. 5. If hee defense 5 had confessed teaching, it cannot be true: both because the thinges done or suffered are not counterfeitable, as also because M. Dorr [...] had neuer seene him but once, & that with many Preachers at an exercise in Burton, vntill the day before hee was dis­possessed: when M. Dorr. only advised the childes friendes to fast and pray, but was not present him selfe. 6. Darling was not defense 6 once placed beside Sommers, no nor once called to accuse Dorr. to his face (as Somm. did) or to acknowledge Counterfeitinge, though the said L. B. had long kept him vnder baile and bound him to appeare for that purpose, & was also present there ac­cordingly in the face of the Court. Belike the L.B. knew full well by former and oft [Page 24] experience, that the boy would deny Mai-Dorrels teaching of him and all counter­feiting. It may bee also he feared least the boy would haue discouered the foresaide dealing with him, as also tolde that Sōmers was appointed his keeper, and that Harse­net added to his confession that which hee neuer spake, whereof he before had accu­sed Harsenet: offering either to sweare him selfe, or to rest with Harsenets oath, but he could not be heard.

allegation 7 Mary Cooper confesseth Counterfeiting.

defense 1 1. The things which she did or suffered in her fitts cannot bee counterfeited, viz. Supernaturall 1. strength and 2. know­ledge. For among other things she told 2. or 3. dayes before it happened of her hus­bands returne, who had long before rūne from her, & had bene but fewe dayes be­fore at Linne, which is from Nottingham (at least) an hundreth miles. 3. Shee was without feeling in her fittes. For her little finger was bēded inward with all the force of a man whereat shee then stirred not, though presently after it swelled much & (many dayes after) shee had great paine. 4. When her fitts ended immediatly began her brother Sommers fitts, and when his ended hers began presently in the twinck­ling [Page 25] of an eye, notwithstanding they were in severall roomes.

Mary Couper deposeth that she thinking allegation 8 her selfe with childe, Dorrell would assure her that she was not: and said moreouer, God blesse euery good woman from such a child. Againe, that shee laughing and smyling, Dorrell would saye that that laughing was from the Diuell; whereas indeed she laugh­ed to heare him talke so foolishly.

1. Heere is nothing to proove that M^r defense 1 Dorrell taught her to counterfeit. 2. If she defense 2 had proved with childe the worst that can be imputed to M. Dorrell, is simplicitie. But strange events manifesting the con­trary, & sufficiently discerned by M. Dor. he had reason (and the rather being Prea­cher of the town) to draw her from wilfull perswasion of being with childe, to the cō ­sideration of the work of God by the mi­nisterie of the Devill, who either inwardly possessed her (which he rather beleeueth) or being without vexed her by some ex­ternall operation. As may appeare by these strange effectes: first Her belly was in the middst as it were divided, and raised vp of either side. 2. Out of her belly was heard sensibly a kinde of whoopping, and also a noyse much like the whurring of a cat. 3. [Page 26] Her belly suddenly swelled as if shee had bene halfe gone with childe, and so conti­nued with little or no increase about a quarter of a yeare. 4. This swelling would be suddenly gone, & after a while be there againe. 5. Vpon and during this swelling she felt something (as it were quicke) stirr within her, which from the beginning she said was nothing like the stirring shee felt when before shee was with childe. 6. At last shee seemed to travell 2. or. 3. dayes, & midwife after midwife was sent for, and many neighbour-women, whereof some were of good worshippe who will testifie the rare accidents. 7. In the beginning her belly was of the bignes aforesaid and soft, the next day very bigg and hard as if she had bene with child indeed, and at the point of deliuerance. 8. Sometimes again very big and soft, sometimes very gaunt, and lesse then any womans ordinarily is. 9. A moving (as of some quicke thing (yet no substance) was seene and felt about her stomacke: aboue her breastes, and in her arme or shoulder. 10 She had the paines of a woman in travaile, & in danger of death, so as the bell was told for her. 11. There were all the signes and forerunners of a child: yea that issued from her which ne­ver [Page 27] came from woman, but when a childe was borne 12. Besides the things in com­mō with a woman, she had lumps of flesh came from her: which caried to the Phisi­tion, he said, If they came from nature she could not live. 13. Yet while these things were in doing, and presently after, she rose out of her bedde and went vp and downe the house, & for all this travaill kept ney­their bed nor house. 14. In her breast was sometimes water, sometimes milke. 15. And after such travaill M. Dorr. and others haue seene her belly somewhat bigger thē ordinarie, and within halfe a quarter of an hower so great, as if shee had ben ready to defense 3 bee delivered of a childe. 3. The reasons moving M, Dorr. so to iudge (as is saide) of her laughing, be these. 1. Hee perceyved Satans work in and vpon her. 2. He remē ­bred the like countenance of Katharine Wright, and of 3. or 4. of the 7. in Lanca­shire. 3. He cōsidered that such an effect may well come from Satan delighted in all vanitie. 4. Hee hearde that for 4. or 5. weekes of her supposed going with child, she could not abstayne (as shee then con­fessed) from flearing, when she looked on any. 5. Hee indeavoured (beeing a Prea­cher vnder whose ministerie shee was) to [Page 28] defense 4 turn hir eye to God correcting her. 4. The allegation of her laughing at M. Dor. foo­lish talking, is but in vaine: considering he resorted to her seldome, and her laughing was many weekes, and in that tyme shee laughed full often when he was absent.

allegation 9 William Sommers deposeth Counterfei­ting and that Dorrell taught him, which though of it selfe it be of small validitie, yet sith 3. other affirme the like, it is to some purpose.

defense 1 1. But the accusation of these other three being palpably false, this 4. depositi­on & the circūstances to support the same be (at least) very much weakened, and ac­cordingly to be regarded. 2. The thinges defense 2 which he did or suffered in his fits, cannot be counterfeited viz. 1. He being gathe­red round on a heape like a loafe was cast vp about halfe a yarde high. 2. A strange noise was sensibly hearde to come out of his belly. 3. Hee often with great force hath beaten his face & head to the groūd, and cast himselfe headlong against the walls, so as one would haue thought hee had spoiled or bruised himselfe greatly, yet receaved he no hurt at all. 4. His face was turned directly backward. 5. For sixe weekes (ofte in a day) his body seemed as [Page 29] big againe as naturally it is, and (once) by swelling he brake a new leather girdle.

6. In this swelling his entralles shott vp & downe like a weavers shittle. 7. Three or 4. men could scarsly lifte him. 8. His fo­ming white and thicke roaped downe his brest somtime an hower togyther, though often wiped away. 9. In his fits his temples and pulses did not beat. 10. He lay for an hower and a halfe as dead, cold as Ice, face and handes blacke, and without breath perceived. 11. His tongue vsully retorted into his throate so as no parte of it was to bee seene in his mouth. 12. He spake di­stinctly in a cōtinued speach for a quarter of an hower his mouth being shutt close. 13. His tongue drawen into his throate & his mouth wide open hee said, Ego sum Deus, ego sum Rex. 14. He neither tooke any sustenance nor disburthened nature for 3. dayes. 15, Pinnes were thrust deepe into sundry partes of his body. Somtimes vp to the head, yet he felt not, neither did blood issue. 16▪ Often cast, sometimes hand, sometimes face in the fire: where he lay a while, yet not burned. 17. Three men did striue with him about an hower till they sweat and were breathlesse, yet he did not pant nor drawe winde, perceived: yea [Page 30] sometimes 4.5.6. or mo were scarse able to hould him though they had him at great advantage, as lying flatt vpon the ground, or vpon a bed, or tyed fast to a chaire. 18. He said Dal. Freeman & Hig­getts wife were stripping & searching. Dal: hath a marke vpon such a shoulder, and the other in her mouth though vnknowen. A­gaine they (to witt Iustice Perkins, &c:) haue her (to witt Milisent Horseley) and are examining her, and she saith she doth all by prayer, now they strippe her and search her, and after, nowe she is brought to towne. Againe they (to witt a constable, &c.) are there now: She (to witt Milicent Horsleyes sister) sitteth lapping her sore toe, ô sore toe! she cannot goe for her sore to, now they hale her forth, looke how they pull her out, they call for ropes and a horse. Looke where she commes running through the meadows, now see shee is come to towne. Againe now M. Dorrell (then at Ashby) hath consented to come, and the next day, now he is come to towne. All these things were as he said, at the same instāt, though far frō him. Again to a traveling stranger, O murtherer what doest thou heere? Who acknowledged fly­ing the land for killing a man about 20. yeares before. An other stranger hee told [Page 31] where hee had gone out of the way, that such a thing befell him in such a place, & of a secret of his body; the man acknow­ledged all. Againe 7. weekes before the Assizes in a traunce, I must go to S. Johns (a house of correction where he was after­wardes had by commaundement of the Maior and Aldermen of Nottingham, a­gainst the will of his parentes) and being there M. Dorrell must not come at me, (which proved true) and at the Assises I must be before the Judges, & they must see. It came so to passe indeede, for by com­mandemente of Iudge Anderson beeing before him, they saw a trifling and de­luding fitt, the boy beeing brought to say hee counterfeited. Lastly he expoun­ded the Creed an hower togeather divine-like, save that he intermixed an error or two, as of Christ his Soules descent into Hell, &c. 19. There were felt vnder the co­verlet (where he lay) 4. or 5. (as kitlings, or whelpes &c.) stirring, & sometimes round as a boull, which vanished or gave place like aire or winde in a bladder, when some would haue held them; the hand removed the boull filled. The coverlett sudainly cast vp, they were gone: thrown downe, there againe: the boyes handes and feete [Page 32] being held. And this cōtinued 10. dayes & nights, in which time he appeached 8. wo­men (of whom they before named were some) and 2. men to be witches, one after an other: at the most two togeather, and as sone as hee named one to haue a catt he was never quiet, but was often tossed and thrown vpon his bed strangly & grevously crying out vpon the partie or parties to fetch and bring them, often saying: their Cats were in bed with him, continuing so till they were had before the Magistrate, & brought vnto the boy. Neere whom as they came (but one after an other) while they were in the house (though in another roome) or offered to go from him, he was grievously and extraordinanrily handled: and yet while the suspected person taryed by him, he lay as if he had bene a sleepe. Besides which observation, there was such triall made, that such as were about him knew as well when any of thē were neere, as if they had bene told. After those tenne persons had bene with the Magistrate and him, he cryed vpon them no more but was quiet. 20 There was in the roome where he lay a strange rapping as vpon wainscott with a finger, Sommers handes and feete being held immoveable. 21. He had a [Page 33] swelling in some places as big as an egge, in some places bigger, in some lesse, run­ning swiftly betweene the flesh and the skinne, from legg to legg, from arme to arme, from finger to finger, on the backe of his hande, forehead, eare-roots, and tongue, yea thereby his eyes were thrust out extraordinarily big and blacke. When it made any stay in legg or arme, it made the leg or arme as heavy and inflexible as iron. Which swelling may seeme to be by the speciall providence of God to stop the mouthes of Atheistes swarming in these dayes. For sundry troubled w^th the sclaun­der of counterfeiting secretly and earnest-prayed to God (the knower of hearts) that they might see some thing that might sa­tisfie them. They went to Sommers, & by this signe (by Gods providence rather pre­sented vnto them then other signes) were satisfied.

Sommers offered to counterfeit this swel­ling allegation 10 before the high Commissioners at Lam­beth.

1. In deed hee putt his tongue into his defense 1 Cheekes. So (belike) he would haue coū ­terfeited the rest, except hee had had the Divels helpe beyond the L. B. of Lond. his expectation. 2. Before he vtterly denied defense 2 [Page 34] the fact. And that not serving the L. B. of Lōdons turne, the L. B. said it was the Cho­lique. But perceiuing that healing so strāg a Cholique by fasting, &c. makes for M^r Dorr: Coūterfeiting in all things seemeth to be resolved vpon as the best policie and defense 3 colour. 3. Thyreus de Daemoniacis, ca. 32 telleth of some possest that had the like defense 4 swelling. 4. Some Popish persons (for the same not called into question as M. Dorr. is) chased the swelling (as they speake) with the signe of the Crosse from head to foote, and from foote to head. Satan ther­by feeding them in their superstitious esti­mation defense 5 of the signe. 5. By fasting & pray­er it was so driven quite away, that it re­turned not, till Somm. was repossest, which was 12. weekes after. All these things cō ­sidered, this (with the rest) came from Sa­tan.

allegation 11 Sundry of Dorrells witnesses haue cor­rected their oathes.

defense 1. No marvaile though some (among many) prove weake; specially beeing dra­wen by such meanes, viz. First laying be­fore them the confession of Sommers him­selfe and of other: So dealt they with Mai. Beersford. But that not prevayling, then were they threatned with aunswering be­fore [Page 35] the L. B. of London at their peril. One was commaunded to appeare the first day of the terme following, & another (name­ly Henry Butler) was commanded to pri­son in the sight of others, Ad terrorem. 2. They doe not denie the trueth of Som­mers defense 2 possession, but extenuate some parti­culars. As for example, Rich. Mee denieth not all swelling of Sommers tongue, and eyes, but lesseneth the bignes. 3. They goe not backe frō other particulars which defense 3 they haue sworne, of no lesse importance then those they extenuate: Nay it may be, if their reexamination were seene, they do confirme them. 4 They are but few, and defense 4 cannot preiudice the rest, especially seeing many scores are ready (for all the L. B. of London his storming) to depose all that, and more then is yet deposed.

Some doe depose, that indevouring to try allegation 12 the matter of Kitlings, & suddenly putting their handes into Sommers bed, one at one tyme caught his hande or foote, another his privie partes; Another sweareth that he de­siring to haue throwen off the Couerlett to [...]aue seene what it was, Mai. Dorrell for­ [...]ad, saying, that Sommers sweating, it was [...]nough to cost him his life.

[Page 36] defense 1 1. The Affirmatiue is directly sworne by sundry witnesses who are not to bee periu­red, because these men failed; for there might bee such thinges at other times, defense 2 though not then whē they tryed. 2. They sweare not that they made such tryall within those tenne dayes, So that it might be afterward when Somm. pretended coū ­terfeiting: If they did, it were to no pur­pose except they sweare that within that time, many such tryalls were made, & yet that were to no great purpose for the for­mer defense 3 reason. 3. It could not be his handes or feete, for his armes and feet were held, and there were 4. or 5. supposed Kitlinges: nor his privie partes (a ridiculous matter) for the Kitlings stirred a pretty space from his body. 4. As for M^r Dorrels forbidding defense 4 to vncover Somm. for the pretended daun­ger, it is both false, (for Sommers did never sweat in any of his fittes) and absurde, for Sommers lay in his clothes with a light co­verlett onely vpon him. But he that often counterfeiteth laughing, must sometimes straine him selfe.

allegation 13 Thomas Garland deposeth that Sommers was sometymes of an ordinarie strength.

defense 1 1. This letteth not but that sometimes he was of an extraordinarie strength.

[Page 37]2. It is not said that he had alwayes super­naturall defense 2 strength, no not in his fitts, wher­in some supernaturall or straunge workes were seene in one fit, some in another, sel­dome all in one.

Sommers was cast with his shoulder to­wards allegation 14 the fyer, where was a grate, & so ta­ken quickly away.

1. This may be at one time, and yet he defense 1 might be so cast (as is deposed by sundry, yea by the foresaide Thomas Garland be­fore the L. B. of Lōdon) that his bare hand lay in the fire. At another time hee was throwne so as his face did beare downe hoat coales; lying thus Mary Cowper snatcht at him; caught his lynnen cap; but left his bare face and head in the fyer, and yet neither face burned, nor heare singed.

Sommers had blacke lead in his mouth,allegation 15 and therefore he fomed, and betweene his teeth, wherewith he seemed to gnash.

1. Blacke lead cannot cause foming, es­pecially defense 1 roping for an hower togeather,defense 2 as is said and proved. 2 The blacke lead was found but once, & that sundry weeks after his dispossession, whē he was perswa­ded to be a conterfeit. 3 Blacke lead may defense 3 cause crashing when he was a counterfeit, but not that gnashing, which was sundry [Page 38] weekes before: at what time hee was no defense 4 counterfet. 4. They that depose gnashing were blind, if they could not see blacke lead betweene his white teeth.

allegation 16 Sommers deposeth that Dorrell taught him to counterfeit.

defense 1 1. It is proved that nothing was coun­terfeit, defense 2 Ergo no teaching. 2. Sommers is but one witnes, therefore not sufficient, espe­cially against a Minister, 1. Timot. 5.19. defense 3 3. The affirmatiue oath of a man of good birth, educatiō, yeares & lyfe, much more of a Minister, should make light the oath of a lewd boy, especially with such as are accompted Guardians of the spiritualtie: as they are called 13. Elizabeth. cap. 12. defense 4 4. Sommers is an vnlawful witnes, beeing manifestlie guiltie of periurie (having by oath both denied and affirmed counterfei­ting) as also of blasphemy: (if hee were a defense 5 counterfeit) For hee said, he was God and Christ. 5. Sommers coūterfeited (to speak as the L. B. of London would have it) a moneth or 6▪ weekes, before M. Dorr. ever saw him.

allegation 17 Sommers deposeth that long before Dor­rell came to Nottingham, they mett at Ash­by de la Zouche, where Dorrell then dwel­led, and (vpō agreement) they mett at Ash­by [Page 39] parke 4. yeares together, euery time Som­mers comming 4. miles, to witt from Ma. Gray (with whom he then dwelled) his house at Gray Langley in Leicester-shire: Jn which Parke and time Dorrell taught and Sommers learned to counterfeit, and after by Dorrels direction, Sommers shewed him self at Nottingham. Also before Sommers went to dwell with one Ma. Brackenbery, (where he began to coūterfeit) Dorr. taught him, but Sommers having not well learned his feates, gaue over till Dorrell had taught him better. Lastly, Dorr. comming to Not­tingham (5^o No. 97.) acted before Sommers the signes of possession and dispossession, gi­ving him direction (and that two dayes to­gether) immediatly before the supposed dis­possession.

1. Either there needes not so much tea­ching,defense 1 or the like tale should haue bene framed of the other 3. counterfeits so cal­led, sith they are all saide to haue played the same feates, and that therfore M. Dor. taught them, because they were handled all alike. 2. To one Sommers said, that the defense 2 sommer before his dispossession, M. Dorr. perceyving a swelling in Sōm. body got by often going into the water, came to him at Nottingham, and bad him conceale it, & [Page 40] so they first agreed vpon counterfeiting▪ To an other, that they came first acquain­ted when M. Dorrell dealt with Katherine Wright, which is aboue 13. yeares agoe, when Sommers was scarse 9. yeares olde. And touching the manner of their first meeting at Ashby deposed: One tyme Sō ­mers tels the L. B. of London that he came to M. Dorrell and two strangers talking in the street, and demanded whereof they were talking: M. Dorrell answered of one Katharine Wright sometimes possest, the strāgers departed, they went into the fields &c. Another time he telles the L. B. that M. Dorr. first mett him in an alehouse a­mong other boyes; had speach with him apart, and so they first agreed vpon coun­terfeiting. defense 3 3. About tenne yeares agoe, (which is 4. or 5. yeares before the saide pretended meeting) Sommers then about 10. yeares old (went from M. Gray to M. Brackenbury in Warwickshire: And it is not 7. yeres since Dorrel came frō Mans­field to Ashby. For most part of whiche time, Sommers being gone from M. Brac­kenbury, and never returning to M. Gray, dwelt in Nottingham and was servant (for 4. yeares before his dispossessiō) with Tho. defense 4 Potter. 4. If Mai. Dorrell acted signes of [Page 41] possession and dispossession two mornings togeather, without doubt some may de­pose the same with Sommers, considering Somm. was never without companie night or day. 5. M. Dorr. can proue that those whole mornings he was elswhere far from Sommers.

Though the boyes testimony alone be not allegation 18 good, yet it is fortified by sundry circum­stances hereafter set downe.

1. Circumstances be but halfe a profe defense 1 in the civill lawe, and that in a case where one sufficient witnesse speakes fully to the matter. Now Sōmers is no sufficient wit­nes: therefore these circumstances are no sufficient proofe. 2. Besides that which is defense 2 said before of the commissioners their bad dealing with deponents, it may now be further excepted against them that they are M^r Dorrells mortall enemies, and were chosen by his adversaries, without his con­sent or knowledge, one of themselues be­ing their Clerke. 3. If notwithstanding all defense 3 allegations to the contrary it bee evident, that nothing was counterfeit, but that many things were impossible to be coun­terfeited, then a thousand such presumpti­ons doe but dazle mens eyes, & conclude not M. Dor. to teach Sommers to coun­terfet, [Page 42] especially sith Somm. deposition so advisedly & preciselie sett down touching the time and place of teaching is vtterlie defense 4 false 4. M. Dorrell doubteth not mani­festly to falsifie some and overthrow all these circumstances: if he may haue a cop­pie of the depositions, or a new commissi­on to examine the same deponents againe. defense 5 and other witnesses not a few. 5. Not one of these circumstances tend to proue that M. Dorr. and Sommers were acquainted longer together then 2. dayes before the dispossession. The contrary whereof if it can be proved, M. Dorrell will yeild. 6. In defense 6 consideration af Sommers periury, & blas­pheming of M. Dorrels life & calling, the strāgnes of the things said to be counter­feited, the heinousnes of the crime obiec­ [...]ed, & the nature of a presumtion (brought for proofe in every common cause) Cir­cumstances are no pregnant matter. But even probably to conclude the thing pre­sumed, these Circumstances should be (as divers, so) very strong. Which (indeede) heere are very weake and in no probabili­tie, doe conclude the thing presumed, to witt, that M. Dorrell taught Sommers to counterfet. As for example, the 13. & 14. Circumstances (two of the strongest) doe [Page 43] thus conclude. M. Dorrell bought out Sommers his yeares of apprentiship, and Sommers resorted to M. Dorrels chamber where they had private talke. Therefore it is likely M. Dorrell taught Sommers to counterfet. Indeed if redemption and talke had bene before dispossession, these pre­sumptions had ben somwhat probable, it being graunted that all Sommers his sup­posed feates could be possibly counterfei­ted. But further aunswer here after. 7. These circumstances are out counte­nanced defense 7 by stronger which more probably infer. 1. First that the L. B.3. Cha [...] by coniecture [...] gainst [...] procee­dings [...] M. Dor [...] of London sits not as Iudge indifferently disposed to ma­nifest the glory of God or pretended coun­terfeiting, but sets himself as an adversary to convince M. Dorrell per fas aut nefas. 2. That the L. Bishop of London did draw Somm. to accuse M. Dorrell. 3. That the high Cōmissioners on whitson even, a­greed in pollicy (by conference or self con­ceiving) rather to blame M. Dorrell, then to shame the L. B. Where note, that the se­cond charge presumeth the first, the third presumeth both, & all presume the weak­nes & nullity of the Circumstāces against M. Dorrell.Circūst [...] ces to p [...] ve the charge The outcountenancing Cir­cumstances are these concerning the first [Page 44] charge. 1. Though M. Dorrell hath many adversaries at Nottingham (some affecting witchery, some Popery,) who would glad­ly prosecute this cause (so enterteyned) with might and maine. Yet the L. B. of London would needs be at charges in sen­ding downe his Commissioners. 2. Harse­net (his chaplaine) was by his appointment (as keeper and examiner of Darling, so) a principall Cōmissioner, whose partiallity in executing his commission, may be pre­sumed by his impudency before the high Cōmissionerson whitsoneve. Both (touch­ed heereafter) presume concurrence with his maister. 3. When deponentes would speake to the iustifying of M. Dorr: Har­senett threatned them, not with the high Commission so much, as with the L. B. of London. 4. The L. B▪ of London not abi­ding any thing that makes for M. Dorrell (according to that of Christ He that evill doeth, hateth the light.) Hideth & hindreth all evidences, checketh or threatneth all witnesses for M. Dorr: Namely M. Ireton (a famous learned minister) M. Gray, and Bambridge worshipfull gentlemen. 5. By his sole warrant the L. B. of London tooke from M. Dorrel certeine directions in law cōcerning this cause only, which M. Dorr. [Page 45] (being denied councell to plead for him) was constreined to procure. 6. Often did the L. B. of Lond. examine (as Darling the boy of Burton) so M. Dorrell (at onetime with an other) vpon 180. interrogatories or thereabout. 7. The register would haue graunted M. Dorr. wife copies of his an­swers, &c. but onely the L. B. of London would not. 8. On Whitson eve the L. B. of Lond. had a booke of depositions, & plea­ded as earnestlie as Doct. Crūpton the ap­pointed advocate, to whom standing at his elbow the L. B. of London was suggester & director. All these things well weighed it is likely that the L. B. of London sits not as Iudge, &c. Concerning the 2^d.Circumstances prove t [...] 2. charg [...] charge 1. The L. B. of London agreed with a Bar­ber about Sommers his service and free­dome. 2. The L. B. of London tooke Sō ­mers into his house, clothed and vsed him to his liking. 3. Before this, Sōmers never charged M. Dorr. with teaching: though long, and ofte before hee had pretended counterfeiting. 4. Sommers (made for the purpose) was appointed Darlings keeper when he was close prisoner in the L. B. house, and then dealt with Darling to doe as he had don. 5. Sōmers robbing of Har­senett was smothered. 6. Though Darling [Page 46] was (by indirect meanes) drawn to say he had counterfeited, yet because he would not say also that Dorrell taught him, he [...] was vsed otherwise then Sommers, as is before shewed. 7. After the L. B. of Lond. had served his tourne, Sommers was sud­dainly made away out of his house & the Barbers service too, when hee had giuen him money fo [...] [...]he Remaynder of his yeates. But whither it is not knowen. Saue that in Whitson weeke the L. B. of London sent his Mother word that he should go to Sea. Least (belike) Sōmers should either be seene in his fitts, & so the opinion that he is still possessed bee iustified, or some should offer money (as a noble personage did) to see his feats, which he either refu­sing to do or not performing according to that hath bene deposed, all the packe of knavery will be opened. These things well weighed, it is likely that the L. B. of Lon­don did draw Sōmers to accuse M. Dorr. Concerning the 3^d. [...]ircum­ [...]nces to [...]ove the charge. charge. 1. The L. B. of Lond. hath giuen out, that sith he hath ta­ken Mai. Dorrels matter in hand, he will haue the credit of it. 2. Most of the after­noone (on Whitsoneve) was spent in plea­ding and pretended proving against Mai. Dorrell. 3. M. Dorr. beginning to speak [Page 47] at large to all matters obiected against him, was by the L. B. of Cant. forbidden, and for this reason, least M. Dorrel should perswade his favourites there present. 4. M. Dorrell desired a cōdition to examine witnesses for his parte, or that depositions already taken, and by him then presented, might be heard. But the L. B. of Cant. de­nied both. 5. M. Dorrell did charge Har­senet and his fellowe Commissioners with threatning of witnesses, taking mony, &c. Harsenet openly answered that M. Dor. durst aswel eate a toades head as name par­ticulars, M. Dorrell did name particulars; wherevpon was some silence. But excuse was readily coyned, and as easily taken. 6. M. Dorrell perceyuing the L. Bisho. their course, appealed to the L. chief Iustice of England; earnestly desiring his Lordsh. to vouchsafe hearing some few particulars as possible for Sommers to counterfeit, as to fly. Audience was graunted. Among the rest he tolde, that Sōmers spake his mouth gaping and tongue retorted. He described the running swelling, and shewed how he was dead an hower, &c. The Iudge ac­knowledged them very wonderful. It was aunswered, That the retorting was by meanes of a string, and that the boy could [Page 48] counterfeit swelling, which the Iudge de­siring to see, Sommers rowled his tōgue in his mouth. To the third nothing was said. 7. Yet for all this that iust Iudge (who in his owne Court admitteth no coppies of depositions without an oath that they are true copies, much lesse boūd vp in books, & suffereth the accused to pleade & prove aswell as the accuser, (yea in a former hea­ring told M^r Dorrell that he was to prove) tooke now occasion to signifie great disli­king of Mai. Dorrell, because he saide hee thought Sommers to be yet possessed. The like occasion or lesse, tooke Doctor Caesar to signifie semblant mislike (though vpon reading M. Dorr. Apologie and the storie of the 7. in Lancashire) he had pronoūced M. Dorrels cause to be Gods cause. 8. Not­withstanding so great proofe pretended of so hainous a matter obiected: As of abu­sing 1. the name of Iesus: 2. the exercises of preaching, prayer and fasting, and hun­dreds of Gods people, by so many couse­nages and counterfeitings as he was char­ged with: yet Mai. Dorrell (the pretended offendor) hath no more punishment, then M. Moore for only iustifying his cause. Amongst the rest perpetuall imprisonmēt was threatned. For the L. B. of Londō had [Page 49] said he should not out of prison while hee were B. of London. These thinges well weighed, it is likely that the Cōmissionars being wise men and able to discerne co­lours, had such regard (in pollicy) of the L. B. of Londons authority, that they hear­kened to whatsoever tended to M. Dorr. blame, and neglected the contrary: least (otherwise) the L. B. of Londō so indirect­ly and egerly following, yet altogeather fayling in so great a matter, should reape no little shame. Though these generall answers bee sufficient, yet more to satisfie all men, M. Dorrell answereth thus parti­cularly.

Dorrell said vpon the bare receipt of a circumstance 1 lettre from a woman, that Somers was pos­sessed hefore he saw him.

The letter (indeed) was subscribed only by M. Dorrels wifes sister,Answere. but written in the name of manie of Nottingham, and conteyning some signes of possession. The messinger (conversant with Sōmers) made the case more plaine: whervpon M. Dorr. (though he had then never seene Sōmers, yet) crediting Gods word which recordeth like signes, answered that if Sommers was handled as is reported, no doubt he was possessed.

[Page 50] circumstance 2 Dorrell was told at his first comming to Nottingham, that Sommers did counter­fett: he notwithstanding gaue out the con­trarie.

Answer.It is true that the next day after he came to Nottingham and had seene Sommers fitts, M. Dorrell said to some suspecting counterfetting, that it could not be possi­bly. This may presume hundreths to haue taught Sommers, and others, to counter­feit: as well as M. Dorrell.

circumstance 3 Dorrell did interpret the sinnes which Sommers acted in a dumb shew, saying hee had seene others possessed doe the like.

Answer. M. Dorrell never sawe the like before, neither was he the interpreter. Indeed no one man especially, but many confusedly did interpret the dumb shew. So that (once) in open Court, the L. B. of London charged Mistris Gray therewith. But ad­mit that M. Dorrell did interpret, it pre­sumeth forwardnes to speak, not teaching to counterfeit, and the rather sith by no arte the like can be counterfeited.

circumstance 4 Dorrell said of certen speaches vttered by Sommers in his pretended fitts, that they were not his but the Divells.

Answer.It is true, M. Dorrels ground is Mar. 1.23.24.34. But suppose it was not the Di [...]ell: [Page 51] this presumeth error of iudgement, [...]ot imposture by teaching.

Dorrell affirmed that Sommers felt not in circumstance 5 is fits and yet when one (to try) would haue [...]ickt him with a pin, he would not suffer: [...]ying, ôh do not so, for though he feele it not [...]w he will heereafter.

The former parte is true, the latter false:Answer. [...]t admitt, yet teaching cannot be presu­ [...]ed, but that M. Dorrell would not haue [...]mmers to much payned, sith sufficient all had bene before made.

Dorrell said that Sommers was possest not circumstance 6 [...] his owne sinnes, nor his Fathers, nor yet Nottingham, but of the whole Land.

It is false: but admit that where so.Answer. Yet [...]s proveth not teaching.

Dorrell said in his preaching over night circumstance 7 [...]ore the Fast, that maryed persons kee­ [...]g a fast must abstaine from knowing another.

[...]t is true: M. Dorrells ground is Joell 2.Answer. & 1. Cor. 7.5. Yet neither this proveth teaching.

Dorr. preaching at the fayned dispossessi­ [...] circumstance 8 [...]ndevored to perswade the people present [...] Sommers was possessed.

[...]t is true, M. Dorr. reason was:Answer. Of manie [...]mbled, some acknowledging Sommers [Page 52] to be tormented, yet doubted of possessiō others were of M. Dorrells minde: To sa­tisfie all, M. Dorr. chose for his text, Mark [...] 9.14. &c. deliuered the doctrine of posses­sion, and applied accordingly. This doet [...] not presume teaching, but M. Dorr. stron [...] perswasion, that Sommers was possest, an [...] not by naturall disease, or otherwise to [...] mented.

circumstance 9 Dorrell then preaching, sometimes pa [...] sed, and made some stay: that the signes [...] possession & dispossession might be seene.

Answer.It is false, for perceiving the worde a [...] worke of God to meete togeather, hee d [...] will the people so to behold the work th [...] especially they hearken vnto the worde God. But admit: this presumeth not teac [...] ing, but that the strāgenes of Gods wor [...] compelled both preacher, and people pause for a while.

circumstance 10 Dorrell then said▪ they should see grea [...] things, and before they were acted, she [...] the signes of dispossession.

Answere.M. Dorrell comming to the 26. v [...] of that text, onely said, that if the Lo [...] would bee intreated to cast out the D [...] these strange thinges should be seene: sequele presumeth the efficacy of fa [...] and prayer, and not that M. Dorr. spea [...] [Page 53] [...]hereof aforehand (yet not prophecying) was guilty of teaching.

Dorrell said, that Sōmers was bewitched circumstance 11 [...]y a woman in Worcestershire, and an other [...]n Darbyshire.

Except bewitching bee disproved,Answer. this Circumstance presumeth not teaching: but rather that Sommers did not coun­ [...]erfett.

When Sommers was in prison, Dorrell circumstance 12 [...]rocured his father in law to baile him.

Sommers Father in law can easily dis­prove that. Besides M. Dorr:Answer. was at Ashby [...]hat day, when Sommers was both impri­soned and bailed: But admitt, this being after dispossessiō, presumeth nothing lesse thē teaching. Only it sheweth M. Dorrells minde, that Sommers should not haue to much wrong being accused to be a witch, and that of malice, because (in his fitts) he had named one Doll Freeman (kinswomā to an Alderman of Nottingham) to bee a witch.

Dorrell bought out Sommers yeares of ap­prentiship. circumstance 13

M. Dorrell indeede was suerty,Answer. (and paid 13 ^s. 4 ^d.) for Sommers Father in law, who agreed (6 weekes after the dispossessi­on) with Sommers maister (being a fidler) [Page 54] for his yeers. Towards paymēt whereof M. Maior of Nottingham collected, &c. For the deed and cause was openly knowen, & approved. This presumeth not teaching more in M. Dorrell then in the Maior, but that M. Dorr. had a godly care that Som­mers should not any longer prophane the Sabbath, but serve the Lorde IESVS in whose name he was delivered.

circumstance 14 Sommers came oft to Dorrells chamber, and had private talke.

Answer.About 8. weekes after the dispossession, there was once or twice such talke. The cause was, Sommers Father and other per­ceiving some misdemeanour, desired M. Dorrell to talke with him hoping that Sommers would regard M. Dorrell then preacher of Nottingham, and the rather because of his deliverance. This presu­meth teaching no more by M. Dorr: then by others, who had oftener private talke with him, who by crossing (as is said) had chased the swelling, had charged the spi­rit in the name of Iesus to goe out, affir­med Sommers to be possessed, and inter­preted the dumb shew: Indeed if it had ben deposed either that this talke had ben be­fore dispossessiō it had ben some thing, or that M. Dorrell was heard commending [Page 55] of Sommers for his acting or counterfe­ting, it had ben more then a presumption.

Dorrell sent Sommers to see Darlings fits circumstance 15 in Burton, that so he might be more expert.

Indeed Sommers avouched as much to Darlings face in the hearing of many in the L. B. of Londons house.Answer. But Darling asking him, whether the bridge into Bur­ton were long or short, or whether his vn­cles house were of wood or stone, and 3. in what end of the town builded? Somm. an­swered, 1. that the bridge was short. 2. That Darli. vncles house was a sorry one of wood: and 3. stāding at such an ende of the towne. Looke (said Darling) what a notable lyar he is. For the Bridge hath so many Arches, and is a quarter of a myle long: my Vncles house built of stone, is one of the fairest, & standeth in the midst of the towne. Besides, Sōmers was all the time of Darlings possession with his Mai­ster Potter at Nottingham, 20. myles from Burton. 4. Let this be proved, so as Dor­rell having commission can not disproove it, and he will yeeld.