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 body * I doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bodie as the soule doth our body bvt that froÌ„ 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 the * I doe not meane that the diuell doth forme or quicken an airie bodie as the soule doth our body bvt that froÌ„ 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 possessioÌ„s 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 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 10â— 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 5â— 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 kiÌ„de 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 râ—deÌ„ 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 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 iÌ„to 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 yeâ— 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
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 Possâ—ssion is no where found in thi argumeÌ„t either in the olde Sâ—râ—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 possâ—ssions at all iâ— Israâ—ll In Christ his time then it should seeme that there were essentiall possessions 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 caÌ„ 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 consensâ— 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 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 vpâ—n meere compulsion but through the voluntary mailice of his owne hart inflamed by the power of Sathan actes 5â—3 So concerning Ananias of whome it is said the divâ—l had fillâ—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 45 The 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 as Quickning Sense Affection only this I say that after an hydden and vnâ—erchable manner they doe apply and ioyne themselues to these her inferiour workes Gennadâ—us câ—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
of bodyes Arg. 2 page 70 75. 76. and 341. Answ. Thus might one reasoÌ„ 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 hiÌ„selfe any 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 possâ—ssed therefore there was neuer any possessed essentiallie This argument halteth on the right leg and is like to this Ans Iob had not that we reade the palâ—y the stone the collick therefore therâ— 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 subiâ—ct vnto by Sathan thâ—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 dâ—e to the body of Iob what he would The kilinge of him eâ—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 AdaÌ„ Though I wil not striue with you in this point but willingly yeilde it Yet the reason you render of it is verie siâ—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 beiÌ„g 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 argumeÌ„t 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 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 susteaÌ„nce 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
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 theÌ„ 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 neuer vâ—iust though his will be alwaies wâ—ckâ—d with Tâ—lsâ—egistus that aâ— humanâ— soule cannot receauâ— any other to makâ— one peâ—sâ—n with iâ— excepted only the sonne of god then an humane bâ—â—â—â— I graunt you a l which theâ—e testimonies â—uâ—uâ—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 Skâ—t to make all â—ure Inâ—eede â—is testimony is pregnant for you page 129. But in the wordes you cite out of him be conteyned two infamous sentences That the Diuâ—ls cannâ—t by any meanes make them selues seene that to assume a boâ—y for appeaâ—ance oâ— other seruice is all one aâ— if the spirit leaving the â—ssence of a spirâ—t sh uld become coâ—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 invâ—â—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 inviâ—â—ble insensible c. Surely they which made trees in times past to call parliaments spake with as great probabillity as M. Skot hath aâ—â—irmed this as is apparant by that already set downe A Suruey of the Fift Dialâ—gue The fift Dialogue treateth of Transformation the second speciall of Corporall poss ssio As if either by assumptioÌ„ of bodies or chaunge of forme aâ—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 possessioÌ„ which is as vntrue as the former distribution vnskilfull The conclusion propounded is That Spirits diuells cannot essentially transfâ—rm them selues into any true naturall bâ—die In which sentence these Discoursâ—rs vnderstand Transformation to be a perfect change of one â—ssence into an other as if a spirit vtterly chaunging his nature ceaâ—â—ng to be a spirit should be made in verie essence a man or some such other thing or else that he not transforming himâ—elfe but transforming an other should change the essence of a man into the essence of a woâ—fe or some like nature In which is to be nâ—ted a double absurdity First that they diâ—pute as a â—oubt which neuer entred into any man for anâ— thing I can finde to maâ—e any questiâ—n of to wit whâ—t h r sâ—irits mâ—ght pâ—rfâ—ctly leaue their â—wnâ— nature throughly change thâ—mseluâ—s into an othâ—â— beeing Indeed this were a happy Transformation 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 confâ—und all apparitions aâ—d appeaâ—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 iâ—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 theÌ„ 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
3 Gennad in definit ecclesie dogmat Bernard Ser 5 Super cantic Aug de divinat doemonâ— 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 theÌ„ mingling themselues with their cogitations by certain imaginarie sights whether they be waking or sleeping But this is principally coÌ„firmed by the scriptures theÌ„selues for that angels making their apparitions in sleepe performe their operatioÌ„s 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 notwithstaÌ„ding whatsoeuer these men say to the coÌ„trary Besides experieÌ„ce 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 frâ—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 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 replâ—tiuely to inhabite in our harts for ever If any sholde affirme such entraÌ„ce 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 A Survey of the third Dialogue 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 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 Râ—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 Leviâ— 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 fâ—retelling forsooth things to come which the Grecians tearme Bowel-prophets fâ—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 hauâ— 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 themsâ—â—ues into the fier into the water and runne to their owne destruction most greedeely as also the swine did hauing receaued these guests wâ—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 to (a) Luk. 11 26 enter into men to be (b) act 19 16 in them to c Mat 12 45 dwell in them and wheÌ„ these men whome we call Demoniacks were healed to (d) Math 12 43 17 2â— Luâ—e 4 5 4â— come or go out of them to be (e) Math 7 22 10 1 8 cast or throwne out and to be (f) Marke 3 23. driuen out (g) Marke â— 25 Goe out of him saith Christ and enter no more into him Then the spirit came out Againe h) mar 1 25 Hold thy peace come out â—f him then the Diuel came out of him And againe i â— 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 suffâ—r vs c Then the vncleanâ— spirit went out eâ—â—râ—d in to the swine pag 3 4 38. Where therefore the Discoursers say there be no proper wâ—rds or tearmes in any of the places â—f Scripture concerning Demoniacks expâ—essing an essentiall pâ—ssâ—ssion the falshood thereof is so manifest that it may be seene with ones forhead For what words or teâ—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 caÌ„e 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 ingrâ—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 diuâ—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 were neuer in Irâ—lanâ— So if the diuell could truly affirme he was neuer in any mans bâ—â—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. 3â— CyPriaâ— de Idol uanitate Aug. lib. de ciuit Dei 8 in fâ—ne caâ—itis 26 Aâ—g de d â—â— doem cap. 5. in Maâ— 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 bâ—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 comâ—clâ— 4 cap 9 â—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 whoÌ„ 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 diuellâ— 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 possâ—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 pâ—wer of Sathan where by both the body is Out of the fits the actions of Demoniaks be gâ—uerned of the miÌ„d in their fits by â—â—e Diuel rent and of Sathan inhabited and the actions of the membâ—rs gouerned not â—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 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 peniâ—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 câ—rtaine weomen which he had healed of euill spirits saith a hic nâ—tat adiunctum inherens This preposition of noteth here the adiunct inhereÌ„t 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 possâ—ssion He proceedeth Possâ—ssion is an action of the diuel wherein the diuel entring into the body of man doth possâ—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 patruÌ„ 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. EpistolaruÌ„ 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 of them all dâ—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 â—â—ewed the contrary out of Tertullian Ciprian Chrisostâ—me Peter Maâ—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 â—ssentiaâ—l possâ—ssion of deuels is only a devise dreame of my owne Buâ— it may in no caâ—e be-forgotten that whiles you tell vs all sound Divines are on your side and not somuch as one with vs you proâ—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 â—n the allegations oâ—â—athers and new writers who so abound therein else where we may easily coâ—â—ecture How Bucer Calvin Marloâ—aâ—â— Guaâ—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 goâ—g to the places ye your selues haue quoted Lastly if diuels haue no such in being in the possâ—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 anâ— thaâ— searching I haue seene till M. Deacon and M Walker now afâ—eâ— sixteeâ—e â—undreth yeares haue Tâ—mâ—ly put vs in mynde thereof â—nly Peter Lumbard saith Sent. lib 2 dist 8. q 4 It is not so peâ—spicuous whether thâ—y eâ—tred really or no. But this was his schoole fashion to finde a knoâ—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 â—earning of all other haue faâ—led Let vs therefore weigh their reasons when first we haue heard their answer to our foresaid maâ—e reason taken from the gospell Wheras the letter of entriÌ„g 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 2â— 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 of the scripture so frequently vsed without any chaunge Because the Lord saith
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 saluatioÌ„ for this cannot be perceaued by corporall sence There be many things which we know and perceaue only by faith 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 possâ—ssâ—d though the diuel neuer essentially enter into his bodie this entrance therefore to such purpâ—se is needelesse and so by consequence there is none The Antecedent or first part of this argumeÌ„t 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 shal be 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 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 â—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 meÌ„s 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 substaÌ„ces Marke 5 9. But the diuels may be in the body of a man to the nombâ—r of a Legion that is 6666. therefore they cannot pâ—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 pâ—ssâ—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 A
Suruey of the Fourth Dialogue In the fourth Dialogue you contend pag. 101 That Diuels cannot assuÌ„e bodyes vnto them Where first it is to be obserued that this disputation 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 Aâ—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 teÌ„pted 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 Thâ— 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 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 2â— 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 22â— 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 beâ—â—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 coÌ„e 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 â—earced hands and peirced feeâ—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 bâ—â—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 agaâ—Ì„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 Dâ—â—â—rum in all the former Diâ—courses that he neuer howâ—ed fâ—â—th like a woâ—â—e tiâ—â— now Your â—aâ—â—â—ty is merueilous in speedy curing his â—â—â—ease If you proceeâ—e with â—â—â—e successe in this kinde you wiâ—l quickly surpaâ—se the Exâ—rcâ—i at Maâ—gnâ—tton Lycaâ—thâ—â—pus was but a â—oâ—le that he complaineâ— not himselfe at your first meeting It seemeth he might haue had present he pe But take heede M. Haâ—sâ—â—â—t be not sent from his Lord with Coâ—ission to exam ne the matter of soâ—e Legerdemaine And thus hauing run the race of this Dialogue you make a passage to the next comming now to Actuall Pâ—ss ssion which is the opposite member to Reall VVhereby it will that neither the â—iuell hath any reall power without For whatsoeuer he doth exerâ—isâ— outwardly it is actuaâ—ly onely saith your goodly diuision and so by your account he shaâ—l be reallâ— no where A Suruey of thâ— Sixt Dialogue page 166. The sixt Dialogue handleth Actuall poss ssion which they describe to be an extraordinary affliction vexation or toâ—ment that Sathan doth effectiuely inflict vâ—on mâ—n fâ—r a time And this actuall affliction and toâ—ment very vnfâ—â—ifully they oppose to that is generally called possâ—ssâ—â—n Whereas whosoeuer is possessed according to that we define possession the same iâ— actually effâ—ctiu ly as they speaâ— afflicted vexed or tormâ—nted by Sathan Where therefore either the spirit of god in the sacred Scriptures speaking of Demonâ—acks mentioneth only their vexation by the spirit Mâ—th 15 2â— Actâ—â—â— â— or any learned writer that maketh not at all against vs or for you as you very â—illily pretend The question and controuersy is whereof we haue spoken alredâ— whether the diuel thus vâ—xing a Demoniack be within him definitiuely as we affirme or without him as you auouch and not whether Demoniacks be effâ—ctiuely vexed by Sathan whâ—ch vâ—xatiâ—n you opposing to that we call pâ—ss ssi n see pag 38 3â— â—â—3 and by it going about to disproue reall possessiâ—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 pâ—ssâ—ssion of diuâ—ls yâ—u acknowledging to haue bâ—ne in the daies of Christ pag. 168. doe flatly deny any further continuance thereof now in tâ—is 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 naÌ„ely 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