may we thinke the forme giuen by our â—auiour is any thing defectiue as if some part of our necessity were omitted If then praier be a meanes to defend and preserue from aâ—tuall possession it is also a meanes to deliuer from the â—ame if at any time we be ouertaken with it And seeing also possession is still remaining in the church as hath beene proued bâ— vnanswerable arguments it must needes be also the remedy of praier is stil remayning and warranted from hence Againe Math. 17.21 This kâ—nde goeth â—ot forth saith he but by fasting and praier To this place you answer That our Sauiour onely makes knowne the impediment in that action but puts downe no commaundement pag. 264 And here you condemne me of grosse ignorance that could not see this I contrariâ—ise admire your superaboundant skill that is able to make two thinges iustle out one an other without any opposition I pray your great learning teach me for of my selfe I can not conceaue How the presence of that thing should not be a meanes an helpe a furtherance the absence whereof is a let an hindrance an impediment Or how a defect can be reproued but that a supply of the same defect should withall be commaunded And how an euill can be perpetuall as I haue shewed aâ—tuall possession is that the remedy should not also be perpetuall considering the Lord is mor ample in mercy towards vs then in iustice Beesides if neither we are to haue anâ— vse of fasting and prayer in theâ—e a tions nor the Apostles euer vseâ— them in casting out diuels at least we neuer reade that they did how might the Church reape profit of this instruction Did our Sauiour giue precepts that were vaine and superfluous Or was this instruâ—â—ion proper to that one aâ—tion and neuer to come in vse afterwarâ—s I beseech you make not dainty of your skill but lighten my ignorance in these points page 265 Moreouer whereas you require some testimony for this ordinance in Paul his epistles and for want of such doe therevpon conclâ—de that there is no such ordinance I answer it is not necessary we should proue this ordinance out of the epistles of S. Paul May not warrant for it out of the gospel suffice And cannons rulâ—s thence for our direction therein If you can proue that all the ordinances of God whatsoeuer be conteyned in Paules epistles I will eyther from thence proue this ordinance or confesse that there is no such ordinance Yet notwithstanding know ye that where the Apostle speaking of the compleat armour of Christians against the diuel requireth that we pray with all manner of prayer and supplication in the spirit Ephe. 6 18. that from thence this ordinance hath confirmation Let this then be a third place And where you adde that the Apâ—stle in the epistles to Timothy and Titus handles at large all Church offices and officers I haue already shewed that expelling of diuels is no peculyar duty of any Church officer and therefore you haue no reason to looke for this precept amongst the aduertisements of their charge Againe you obiect S. Peter that laying opâ—n the perpetuall vaâ—aries of Sathan to kill deuour he maketh nâ— mention of prayer fasting but only of a strong faith I answer The reason of this was because S. Peter was not aware of that variance betwene faith prayer which your Eagle eyes haue espyed who as it seemeth can haue a faith without prayer and prayer without faith He thought symply as he had learned that where â—e spake of faith men would also haue vnderstood all the helpes and furtherances of faith not by the name of faith destroy whatsoeuer might giue maintenance to it But because you stand so strictly vpon the word prayer take this for a fourth place Is any among you afflâ—cted let him pray Shall we thinke that possession is no affliction Iames 5 13 Or that in this affliction onely we are barred from praier Or if we doe pray that it shall be to no effect Now then you may see that you casting your net and for all your dragginge findinge nothing in all the canonicall scripture for this ordinance it was not for want of stoare whereof I haue giuen you but a tast that you drew vp empty to land but because you had so manâ— floters in the top and wanted leade to sinke it a conuenient depth VVhereas therefore you chalenge me for proofes of this institution these places may suffice for authority of scriptures And might not those testimonies of antiquity and of present praâ—tise with the godly now aâ—aies content you which I haue alleadged in the Doctrin but that you must blazon me for a Braver in wordes page 265 which neither had brought any thing to purpose nor possibly coulde bring Say youâ— wâ— wonder yâ—u blush not to braue out the matter by pretending the authority of Scriptures the testimony of fathers olde and nâ—w the practise of the church and the good successe thereof to mannage the matter it sâ—lfe I beesech thee good Reader let me by thy patieÌ„ce remember some part of that already set downe in the Doctrine page 55. whereby thou maist better behould these mens vnhonest dealings and whether I meerely pretend these things as they tell thee First therefore I haue cited Origen speaking to this effect Orig. in mat 17 21. Tertul. in apolog ad Scapul cap 3. Cypâ—ian ad Demetri Chrysost tom 50. de incompre Dei natura homil 3. If at any time wee shall deale about the curing of the pâ—ssâ—ssed we continuing in prayer fasting may obteyne helpe from God for them shall driue forth the wicked spirit by fasting and prayer Next Tertullian who saith We expell diuels out of men as is knowne to many Then Cyprian saying diuels are bâ— vs cast out of bodies possessed Fourthly Chrisostome out of whose testimony there cited at large these wordes be part So the fathers haue appointed that men vexâ—d by the diuel shoulde be brought forth that the people and all the citty being present publique prayers might be made for them that all with one accord might intreat the Lord in their behalf and might striuâ— with strong crye that the Lord would haue mercy vpon thâ—m c Fiftly Peter Martyr concerning men possessed vsing these wordes We wil vse for them faithfull prayerâ— I say Peter Matter pâ—â—t 4 cap. 9 sect 13. chemnis de sacra ordiniâ— prayers most vehement supplications for thâ—ir recouery In a w rd this should be the m st laudâ—ble wise course that exorcismes at this day be turned into prayers Sixtly Chemnisius who saith That in the timâ— of Chrisostome and Prosper the possessed were brought into the Church and were oft deliuered by the common supplications of the assembly Seauenthly Philip Melancthon making mention of diuers which were possessed and namely of a damsel in Mantua Phil. Melanct lib. epistol that had
diuel set him on a pynnaâ—e of the temple The Angels sinnedâ— are cast downe into hell to be kept vnto damnation The angel k pt not their â—irst estate They are reserued vnto he iudgment of the great day Heerevnto many more places might be added but these suffice to shew that many thiâ—gs spoken of spâ—â—tâ— are to be vnderstood accâ—rding to the very lat r. And so arâ— without conâ—rouersâ— in particuler the places to be interpreted concerning the diuels entring into Demoniacks goâ—ng out of them noâ—â—itâ—standing whatsoeuer these vaine â—anglers â—hich would be â—oâ—tors yet vnderstand not what they speake neither wheâ—eoâ—â— affirme prattle to the contrary Which iangling of theâ—s is very caâ—e to be reselled by the rules which aâ—l men deliuer when the â—â—â—tures are figuratiuely to be vnderstood Zanchius de oâ—eâ—b â—ede pag. 66 and when not figuraâ—â—uely but properly Then namely are they tâ— be vnderstood figuâ—aâ—â—ueâ—y when the sâ—nce which the very words taken according to 〈◊〉 pâ—â—per â—â—gâ—iâ—â—cati n sounds agreeth not with other scrâ—tuâ—e and with the aâ—alâ—gy of faith but is rather repugnant to the holy scriptuâ—es On the other deâ— proâ—erly when it doth not repugne Now to what testimonies of the scripture is this entring in and gâ—einge out râ—pugâ—aâ—â— being literallie vnâ—erstood Ad Gen. li 11 caP 1. what scripture is there that contrarieth this ingrâ—sse inbâ—inge and goeing out of the spirit we speake of To the former rule let vs adde this other of Auâ—ustine Wh n any thing saith he is f und in the Scripture which cannot withâ—ut an abâ—urdity be possbly interpreted literally that thing without doubt is spoken figuratiuely must receaue some other signification then the bare letter doth seeme to import and otherwiâ—e accordinge to the letter for that is to be vnderstood But from this said literall interpretation there can arise no absurdity therefore not a figuratiue but the litterall interpretation is heere to be receaued But you proceede in your answere saying that we must not so strictly tye our selues to the obseruation of words else pag. 67 1 Sa. 16 14 how will we vnderstand this Scripture The good spirit of the Lord departed from Saule an euil spirit of the lord came vpon him And so ye goe on â—umbling the second time about an equall manner of entring by the holy spirit and the bad If Saule was possessed with an euil spirit say you when the euil spirite of the Lord came vpon him then also was he really possest with the good spirit of god when he was annoynted King because it was so promised That the spirit of the Lord should come vpon him 1 Sam 10 6 10 I answer first that Saule was no Demoniack Secondly I haue sufficiently shewed your grossenes in attributinge a like manner of entring to God the infinite spirit and to the wicked angel a finite creature The good spirit being euery where commeth vppon a man by causing his graces more to appeare and to sprout forth in him the euil spirit being of a limitted nature and therefore absent from one place when he is in an other comes vpon and into a man not by influence and instigation properly but by personall reall presence This considered your hebrew is to no purpose page 68. as also that which you no lesse falsly then tediously avouch in the next page wherein you match the good and euil spirit togither in a self same manner of entring into men Thus much for replie to the answer you giue to the aforesaid maine argument prouing a real possession Let vs now examine your reasons whereby you goe about to ouerthrow the same and to proue that the diuel did neuer reallie enter into inherently dwell in the possessed mans bodie pag 65 answere page 65 68. Their firct argument against reall possession pag 34 35. First you say That there be no proper wordes or tearmes in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacks expressing an essentiall possession which the holy ghost wanted not if he had euer purposed to expresse such a matter For neither the hebrew word achuzzah nor iereshah nor ierushah morashah nâ—r the grecke word etema which is ordinarily obserued in the new testament to set forth possâ—ssâ—on by as the other be in the olde are vsed in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacks therefore there be no proper wordes or tearmes in any of the places of scripture concerning Demoniacks expressing an essentiall possession Ans I deny the argument For there may be nay there are other wordes and that very often vsed by the holy ghost in those scriptures which concerne Demoniacks that manifestly declare the inhâ—rency of the spirit in Demâ—niaâ—ks which these wordes signifying possession nor any of the same significatioÌ„ doe not had the saÌ„e bene vsed by the holy ghost Doe I any where ye Discoursers or yet any man else goe about to proue the inherency of spirits in Demoniacks from our English translation and from the tearmes of possâ—ssion and possessed Surely neither my selfe nor yet any other of meane vnderstaÌ„ding euer doted so much For first I know very wel that the word in the Original signifieth neither possession nor possessed Secondlie admit it did it were very absurd from thence to conclude this inbeing of the spirit A man may be possessed of an house though he be not in it So might the diuell be possest of a man albeit he were not in him if there were nothing else to proue the inbeeing of Sathan in men possessed Whereby the vanity of this Prosyllogisme doth notably appeare and that these men keepe much adoe about mooneshine in the water Their leaues consumed about the terms of possession and poss ssâ—d seruing to no other purpose but to proclayme their great skill forsooth in the hebrew greek tongues As for our English translators they in translating the word Daemonizomenoi in latin Daemoniaci possessed with diuels did not respect so much the propriety of the word as the condition of Demoniackes and to explane that word by shewing in parte what a Demoniacke is Cypri ad Domiti tract 1 Chrysostom Tom 5 de in compre Dei natu hom 4. Aug. lib. 8 de Ciuaâ— Dâ—i cap. 26 And from hence it is that the words possession and possessed haue bene vsed by Cyprian Cheysostome Augustine and generally all auncient and latter writers vntill this day Not to note the inbeing of the spirits in Demoniacks which neede not as theis Ianglers fond lie pretend but to shew that the diuel houldeth in his dominion or power the bodies of Demoniackes as a man doth that which he possesseth From this argument they proceede further to argue against reall possession vnder certaine foolish and vnlearned questions Orthodoxus being out of breath Phisialâ—gus starts vp in his place and proues it by good senslesse reason Doe you imagine saith he that the Lord euer propounded any such ende to himselfe in the creation
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
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
I will enter a d yet doth not enter essentially doth it therevpon follow that alâ—o diuels where it is said they doe enter should not enter essentially Is there the like reason of the infinite anâ— of finâ—e spirits God being euery where cannot be saiâ—e to enter but figuratiuely but in the creature which entreth by chaunging pâ—ace it is alwaies proper except we can shew necessary reason to the contrary By as good coÌ„sequence you might proue that Aarâ—n the high preist neuer entred into the tabernacle of the congregation essentiaâ—y The Lord commaunded the Israelites to make a tab râ—acle for him Exod 2â— 5 pâ—al â— 7.9 that he might dwel amongst them And Dauid willeth the euerlasting d ores to lift vp their heads that the king of glory might â—ter in but â—ay you the King of glory did neuer enter in essentially and therefore where it it is said that Aâ—ron went into the tabernacle it is by your leaden rule to be taken that he went not in corporally Such foolery if it might be suffered wold make the scripture a nose of wax if men might reiect the letter vpon euery such absurd fancy It irkes me to spend time in reproouinge such dotage But you say Sathans entring into Iudas Ioh. 13.27 which is the same manner of speach is nothing else but that Sathan did darte or thrust the treason into his heart I reply as before Iudas was not a Demoniack and therefore this example fittes not the purpose It is not necessary the same speach in suggestion and possession should import the same thing it being proper to the one and figuratiue to the other But if you can shew vs a possession which was effected by darting only cogitations into the heart we will yeald vnto you that these wordes of entring dwelling imply no reall inbeeing This is in effect that you say These words entring into Ioh. 13.27 â—e not to be vnderstood literally therefore in the Scriptures concerning Demoniacks the said wordes are not to be vnderstood literally By this reason Christ entred not into Capernaum as it is said he did Math. 8.5 Neither entred he in to a ship as it is said Math. 8.13 Neither entred Mary into the house of Zacharias as it is writtten Luk. 1.40 But some spiritual and mistical thing is in these places to be vnderstood by the words entred into for to make this an argument you must haue this for your proposition These words entring into whersoeuer they be fouÌ„d in Scripture are not to be construed accordinge to the letter Now this proposition I will be so bould as to deny and put you to the proofe thereof in your next learned Discourse You goe on further in your answer thus Wheresoeuer the Scriptures speake of the diuel his eâ—tring in Answ. page 15. and 21. going out of the parties possessed they speake it only by Metaphâ—re And this you proue by Mark. 1.23 which place you shew at large cannot be taken in the liâ—erall sence Answ pa. 17 How Marke 123 is to be expounded it is euident by comparing it with Luâ—e 4 â—3 with acts 19 16. As also by conferring Mark 5 2. with Luke 8.27 Ioh. 10 15 Luke 13 32 2 Tim. 4.17 After this manner indeed you argue One place of Scripture concerning Demoniacks viz. Mark 1.23 can nâ—t be taken in the literall sence but metaphâ—ricallie therefore no scripture concerning Demoniacks Shall I instead of further reply proceede to reason after your manner Thus then will I reason Diuers places of Scripture concerning Christ can not be vnderstood literally but metaphorically therfore none Or thus Christ is said to be a dore a vine ergo Christ was not borne of a virgine crucified c. H rod was a * fox therefore not a king Nero a * lyon therefore not a man But supposing these wordes of entring in and going out wheresoeuer in holy scripture they haue relation to the diuel were not to be vnderstood literally are they therefore to be taken metaphoricallie as euery where you tell vs No verily There were a plainâ— metonymie of the effect and not a metaphore And considering you vse the worde effectiuely so often and that you say oft that this going out pag â—6 and entring in of the diuel must be vnderstood of an effectuall and powerfull operation me thinkes if you were so great clarkes as you seeme to your selues to some poore soules in the world you should one time or other haue be thought you of this error which a scholler at the graÌ„mer schole would quickly correct If you will needes haue here a metaphore I pray you let it hereafter be made to appeare with his protasis and apodosis that so we may conceaue this hidden metaphor But Orthod xus leaueth not heere And this I say further Aut. pag 15 quoth he that you can not possibly alleadg throughout the whole Scriptures any one text wherein either Angels or Spirits or diuels are otherwise spoken of then only by metaph re VVhat Is euery Scripture of this kinde metaphoricall why you your selues doe tell vs that where in Luk. 4.35 a man is said to haue a spirit of an vnclean diuel that by spirit we must vnderstande the impulsion motion or inspiration of the spirit Answere pag 20 21 According to which sence say you the word spirit is vsualy obserued both in thâ— olde aâ—d new testament And for confirmation thereof you alleadg Dan. 4.5.6 5.11 12. Reu. 16.24 In these places then there is a metonymie as euerie boy can tell you and not a metaphor Ioh 15 2â— Againe where Sathan is said to enter into Iudas that is suggest or thrust the intended treason into him another text alleadged expounded by your selfes who â—eâ—th not that this is spoken metonimice and not metaphoric In the fift of the Actes it is said of â—annias that satan filled his heart This filling say you in page 48 was effectiuely Here then likewise is a mâ—tonymie wel metonymie or metaphore or whatsoeuer â—t is this they are very sure of that it is not possible to shew any one place of scripture wherein that which is spoken of Angels or diuels is to be interpreted literallie No VVhat say you to Heb. 1 14 where it is said they are ministring spirits sent forth to minister for their sake which shall be heires of salvation And concerning diuels these places must needes be vnderstood according to the letter Satan prâ—uoked Dauid to number Israâ—ll The deuil hath bene a murtherer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him wheâ— hâ— spâ—ak th a liâ— 1 Chro. 21.1 Ioh 8.44 Iames 2 19 mar 5 12 Luc. 4 2 Pet 2.4 Ivde 6 then speaketh be of his owne for he is a lyar The divels beleeue tremble All the diuels besought Iesus Iesus was 40. dayes tempted of the diuel The diuel saide if thâ—u be the sonne of God c. The
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
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
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
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
vpon former times If possession be apparant in these our daies it must needes be that neither hath it ceased in ages past To come then to our own times with one bush to stop two gappâ— Examples we haue In our owne country aa in Margaret H rrison of Burnham Vlpe within the county of Norfolk in Kath. Wright in M. Throckmortons children Th. Darling of Burton the â—eauen in Lancashire Iâ—ne Iâ—rden the seruant of Symon Fox of Shadbrook in Suffolk whose cause was hearde before the Right Ho the L. Cheif Iustice of England at S. Edmonde bury the 12. of Iuly 1599. Ioane Nayler as was proued before the Right Ho the L. Anderson Novem. 30 the same yeare Susan Bâ—yton of Saffron Walden in Essex as is plaine by the euidence giuen against Alice Bentley at the Quarter Sessions holden at the aforesaid Walden the 13. day of April 1602. which Susan was lately dispossessed the meanes being ved which God hath to that end appointed Also in Tho. Harison of North Wych in Ches shire in Clemens Charles a maid of Woolroytch commoÌ„ly called Wullage in Kent both which be at this present very greuously vexed by Sathan so as he that will may be an eye witnesse thereof Gallobelg lib 11 Out of our owne countrey as at Spandaw a towne sixe miles from Brandenburgh in Germany in the â—eare as I take it 1594. the diuel did walke visibly and possessed more then twenty men uexing them in miserable sort Yea he scattered in the publike streetes mony boxes golde siluer buttons and such like and he that gathered any of these things was presently vexed by the diuel Wherevpon it was forbidden both in the schooles churches that none should take vp any such scattered things The like were done by wicked spirits at Berlin in the same Marqueship of Brandenburgh And at Fridberge a towne of the new Marchia there were more then an hundreth and fifty men of either lex condition age which were possessed with wicked spirits These things are testified by D. Iames Coler Provost in Berlin and M. Robert Coler and M. Iames Pretâ—r Pastors of the Church in Spandavia To whose Narration Balthasar Westphalus and Iohn Muller Consuls of Spandaw haue subscribed de Abdit â—er caus lib 2 ca. 16 Iohn Fernelius aman worthy to be credited for his famous learning place and deserued authority throughout all Christendome reporteth of two possessed one taken in the night when as by occasion of immoderate thirst he rising out of his sleepe and finding no drinke bit of an apple that he hit on by chance wherewitâ— presently he perceaued his iawes to be shut as it were strangled with ones hand with all he being now possessed of a diuel entring into him did seeme to behould himselfe in the dark to be deuoured by a mighty black dog which things saith he afterwards when he was restored to his perfect minde he reported to vs in order The other was a Knight his sonne taken in such sort that sometimes his left arme sometimes his right sometimes one finger one whiles one thigh one otherâ—hile both sometimes the whole body was greuously vexed which torment passed with so great swiftnes shaked him so vehement â— that hardlâ— foure seruants could hould him in his bed The most skilfull phisitions iudged it a conuulsion hauing next affinity with the Epilepsâ— and so accordingly directed their practise but without anâ— successe at all The reason was saith he for that we were all deceaued in the true iudgment of the Cause For in the third moneth a wicked spirit was found to be the author of all the euil bewraying himselfe by a voice and vnwonted words sentences both Latine and Greeke although the sick party was ignorant of the Greeke tongue He discouered many secrets of them that sate bâ— and especially of the Phisitions laughing that he had deceaued them in a matter of so great perrill and that they had almost killed that poore body with their vnprofitable medecynes These examples alleadged giue vs euident proofe of possessions in these daies Now let the Reader choose whether he will beleeue these testimonies and experiences or the vnsauory and vnlearned disputations of these Discoursers pag 22. â— Hitherto of Possession now they turne themselues to Obsession vnskilfully opposed as hath bene partly shewed to Possession For they which treat of these matters vse these wordes indifferently Cyprian saith And by the torments of wordes they are cast forth of Obsessed bodyes So Fernelius in the place before cited And withall he being now obsessed by the diuel entring into him Cyprr ad Demetri De oper lib. 4. cap. 10. Likewise Zanchius as before we heare speaking of diuels substantially entring into bodyes calles it by the name of being Obsessed by diuels And indeede Obsidere doth not onely signifie to beseige and to compasse about but also Teneâ—e Occupare Opprimere to Hold Possâ—sse Oppressâ— as when Tully saith Cum is qui audit ab Oratore jam obsessus est ac tenetur When the bearer is now pâ—ssâ—ssed and held by the Oratour And it semeth that writers rather vse the word Obsessed then Possessed partly for coÌ„fort of the afflicted teaching them they are not absolutely in the diuels power howsoeuer he thus furiously rageth in their bodies but rather that he now seeketh to vanquish them then that without all hope they be vanquished already partly also for the better sound These Discoursers in a priuate vnderstanding make Obsâ—ssion nothiÌ„g else but an outward assault of Sathan which onely power they leaue vnto him now And where it is obiected This doth open a dore to Athiesme they returne this imputation very wisely vpon the doctrine of possession as if to teach both inward and outward vexation were a doctrine of more security then theirs of outward temptatioÌ„ onely It had wont to be an old said saw in Geomitry the part is lâ—sse then the whole but these men will refine all Artes teach vs a new That the parte is more then the whole And so let this memorable Axiome shut vp this dialogue A Survey of the Eight Dialogue Hauing bewrayed your great ignorance concerning the power of Sathan you come to talke how this power is to be subdued wherein you shew your selues as blinde if not also obstinate and peruerse as you haue in that already passed Much lauish speach is in the begining wherewith I will neither trouble my selfe nor the Reader Onely we may noate by the way page 234. how vntruly you require for the subduing of astuall possession an extraordinary power concerning which we shall see in that which followeth Then you fling out as youre custome is against the worke at Nottingham because say you Crying aloud rending sore page 24â— leaving as dead be made vndoubted true signes of that dispossession whereas the same things are seene in Mania and sometimes a Mania without them as in your selues in Phrensies
in the Mother in Convulsions c. I answer I neither make these the onely nor the necessary signes of dispossession for I know diuers haue bene wrought without them but I frame my reasoÌ„ thus Where these signes be a present deliuerance doth follow from those former vexations by Sathan vpon the request of God his people that there is a disposs ssion I confesse these signes particulerly may be in diuers diseases but they are not from the diuel neither is there a present restoring of the parties diseased in naturall sicknes vpon the vsing of earnest prayer Those meanes for dispossession which you stand vpon pag 244 etâ— I allow not They be not Rings Rootes nor Hearbes that be of any auayle in this worke Neither doe we vrge the fishes liuer nor Dauids harp nor the musick wherewith Elishas spirit was calmed and therfore all this as supeâ—fluous talke nothing perteyninge to this cause I omit But we cleaue onely to God his owne ordinance of prayer holpen forward by the Exercise of fasting which according to his gratious promise mercy we haue proued to be effectuall Against which before you encounter with your full strength you sporte your selues with a prophane scoffing in the end of this dialogue in page 26â— And first you wil needes wring from me whether I wil or no that the worke done at Nottingham was done onely by fasting You are able to wring Hercules his club out of his fist You haue proued your selues such exceeding sharp Logicians in the former Discourses that I staÌ„d in great feare of you yet now I must endure the brunt of it come what wil. Go to then bring forth your wringer This then is it That which made the prayer more forcible the spirit more apt pag 257. 258 was the onli efficient cause of the supposed action But your fasting made your praier more forcible c. theâ—efore was the efficient cause of the action This is a wringer indeede If Cardane were aliue he would register this Practicall Theoreme in the booke of his Subtiltyes What a profit would this proposition well vnderstood bring to many artificers It would ease them of great expence in prouiding many tooles The Carpenter might spare his axe and chisels and goe to fell timber square loggs and doe his other workes with his onely whetstone For that which makes the axe and chisell more forcible is the onely efficient of the worke And so by this vnanswerable reason I am made a Montanist a Papist pag 257 â— one that makes fasting a sufficieÌ„t meanes in it selfe for suppressing of all suggested actuall sinnes whatsoeuer which opinion though I am far from yet if you wil follow my counsaile M. Deacon for some things that I know you should fast more then you doe page 259 Againe you are instant to know If prayer be a meanes in what order of meanes I woulde place it Not in that sure which you foolishly fancy to your selues For what childe would esteeme of praier as a meere naturall action page 260 But this is suteable to your other blinde ignorances Further you argue that prayer can be no meanes whether we respect the Sound the Voyce or the wordes wherein you shew your selues no lesse voyd of piety then you haue bene hither to of wit and learning Can you not be content to reproch me but you must needes open your movthes against the holy worship of God Can you finde no other causes wherefore prayer shoulde be effectuall but onely for a noyse that is made or for some distinct voice or else for certaine charming words In which of these respects coÌ„sisteth the power of ordinarie prayer you must needes answer It consisteth in none of them Conclude then that ordinary praier is but lip labour Your audatiousnes is in tollerable In this 260. page you carry your selues more like Athiests then Preachers It is a shaÌ„e your booke was not better examined before it was allowed to the presse But thus hauing brandished your sword about your eares you make an end of this foolish talke and prepare your selues to other as good A Survey of the Ninth Dialogue This Dialogue aymes at two poynts That Prayer fastinge be not established by Christ pag 263 as a perpetuall ordinary meanes for powerfull expelling of diuels That Iustifying faith apprehending some supernaturall power of God doth not effect that worke For the first the Reader must take heede he vnderstand not prayer and fasting as I meane it and we all vsually doe for an effectuall ordinaunce of God to quicken faith by which is our onely apprehender of God his mercies in these and all other actions but for a bare and meere naked performance of these workes of Fasting Prayer For so these Trifelers expound themselues page 292. some fifteene leaues after Which disputation might haue had some vse against Papists that mainteine their Opus operatum an efficacy of the worke done for the onely workes sake but in what stead can it serue against me It may be they intended it against Papists these Discoursers propounding to themselues the generall doctrine of Spirits but neither doe their arguments presse them at all besides they apply their whoâ—e couâ—â—e of speech against that done at Nottingham So then they dispute against me in worde but not indeede therby labouring to deceiue the Reader not able as they thought to di tinguish betweene these two If you had ment plainly you would haue shewed in what sence you had dealt in this place but it was shameâ—ull to expresse it for so you should haue appeared to all worthy to be hissed at And therefore you deferd your explication til some thirty pages after where no man would looke for it that in the meane sea son you might seeme to be talking and yet at last haue a runninge knot on your iugling stick to pray fast and looâ—e with at your pleasure Should any man bestow time against persons of such peruerse trade that are corrupted in their mindes 1 Tim. 6.5 and are depriued of the truth I assure thee good Reader euery lyne seemes a page vnto me yet least thou shouldst be deceaued by these Huâ—sters dealing I put my self to these paines Wel then to comâ— to the first poynt If you can say any thing wherefore fastiâ—g a d prayer accompaâ—yed with â—râ—e t stifying faith is not a perpetuall meanes ordeyned by Christ for expelling â—f diuels let vs heare what it is There is no commaundment ay you or cannon any where exstaÌ„t in all the Scriptures for tâ—e apprâ—bation of it page 264. Because it seemes you haue bene seeking and can finde none I will shew you some Our Sauiour teaching vs to pray And leade vâ— nâ—t into temptation but dâ—liuer vs fr m euil doth therein teach vs to pray against actuall possession It was an euil you confesse where with many in his time and after were troubled Neither
bene healed of that disease by the prayers of the godly of whome he saith Et adhuc viuite sana and yet she liueth and continueth sound which was 17. yeares after the cuâ—e Vsing further these wordes Neither indeede doe I doubt but that euil may be taken away and the diuels expelled by the prayer of the godly And a few lynes after I know many examples a herein it is certaine the prayers of the godly preuayled Beza homil 26 In histor pass edit 2. page 656. Eightly Theod. Beza writing thus I know a certaine houshoulder in France indued with the knâ—wledg of the gospel and which had embraced the same who when in anger he had giuen one of his children to the diuâ—l haâ— his sonâ—e presently pâ—ssessed of the diuel Vogell in theâ—aur then log â—ag 980 out of whome after he was cast by the feruent and vncessant praiers of the church Nynthly Vogellius affirming that for casting out of diuels there is not a better and more godly way at this day then that Christ sitting at the râ—ght hand of the father be called vâ—on not onely by the kinsfolk of the possâ—ssed but also of the whâ—le church with a feruent hart be put in minde of his omnipotency mercy whereby onely at this day the vncleane spirits are cast forth â—enthly Danaeus saying wâ—erefore by fasting and prayer which he that prayeth doth dâ—uels may be cast forth that is Danâ—quest 38 in Marc. with the long continuall feruent prayers of the posessed man Chass in loc com lib. 1 cap. 17 and also the church as are thâ—se which are ioyned with â—asting c. Lastly Chassanion auouching thus This onely remedy remayneth to vs whereby we ought to helpe these kiâ—de of me viz. possessâ—d worthy of commiseration to wit that with feruent prayers we â—ray for their deliuerancâ— Sâ— I heard that a Dâ—mâ—niack was deliuered in a certaine towne within the Dolphyns prouince These testimonies haue I alleadged in the Doctrine and vnto tâ—ese can adioyne more But to what purpose these remayning vnanswered Now then you Diâ—coursers whereas I affirmed that both the auncient Doctors the lights of our owne time did witnesse with me in this poâ—nt was this nothing but a Thrasonicall vaunt as you tearme it Or hugâ— braviÌ„g barrels that would nâ—uer be set on broach and proofes that did haeâ—ere in calamâ— cleaue so cloâ—e to the pen that they could prâ—cure no publique passage page 166 Are most plaine and euident testimonies of truth to be shifted of in this manner you are like the malefaâ—tors which knowing themselues sure to be cast by the Iury refuse the ordinarye tryall by God the country and will be tryed by no other meanes but by God and the Queene So you in a desperate case woulde gaine some time and daily of the verdict ready to condemne you by requiring some other course which you thinke is not present To the end therefore your notorious impudency may be had in remembrance let there be a publique instrument drawne to this effect Be it knowen vnto all men by these presents that Iohn Deacon and Iohn Walker vnworthely reputed Ministers hauing had the câ—eare euidence of truth passed against them and being neither able to answer one word nor induring to submit themselues thereunto as they ought are two shamelesse beastes which with branded consciences and whorish forheades haue soulde them selues to face out a lye to deceiue the simple with In witnesse whereof all the learned of this land which shall consider the allegations against you and your paltry answers will in consent of mindes subscribe to these presentes that they are true Let this then suffice for the proofe of that I haue brought and so I will proceede to examine yours You cite M. Caluin against actuall fasting alone pag 226 as an effectuall counterpoyson for the expelling of Sathan as it is mainteyned by the Papists What is this to me you Discoursers Haue I any where said it or shewed it by practise that the very worke of fasting and prayer without faith is sufficient in this businesse Or doth M. Caluin speake against fasting and prayer being ioyned with faith What impudent men are these that dare offer such a thing so palpable to the view of the world The hare is neere driuen that is faine for refuge to run betwene the hunters leggs and your case is desperate that seekes releife at such a testimonie Then you cite M. Bullinger as if he also should say that praier fasting is not here prescribed as a perpetuall canon I graunt as M. Bullinger vnderstandeth it that is It is not prescribed as a perpetuall cannon to exorcists Our sauiour doth not here instistute a new office in the Church but this makes nothinge against the common duty of christians that they in their assemblies whether greater or lesse should vse prayer fasting in this behalf So likewise D. Fulke is to be vnderstood Rhem. tâ—â—â— Math. 17.11 out of whome you cannot shew one sillable against these holy exercises of the congregation but as they are appropriated to the persons of Exorcists After this dispute you fall a jangling against me condemning me as a busie bâ—die for intermedling in this action at Nottingham page 26â— But you might vnderstand if malice would let you that I pressed not into this businesse but was drawne into it I tooke vpon me no facultie aboue others but was willinge after much intreaty to ioyne with my bretheren in so charitable a worke I disordered no ecclesiasticall gouernment of our Church but being allowed a Minister of the Gospell I did no more then my place would warrant What meane you then vpon this occasioÌ„ to let flie at Christ his sacred discipline See pag 270. Is the disgracing of his ordinance that which must win you your spurs I know the shadow of discipline is terrible vnto you But it were happy for you if you might tast of her seueritie that you might escape his which accounts not mans negligence his winking at our crimes for payment I will not presse you further this way The Lord giue you harts of flesh that the works of flesh being destroyed in you your soules bodies may be safe in the day of his iudgment Whereas you cauill against prayer and fasting that it is no meanes to expel Sathan pag 271 because the effect doth not presently follow what ignorance or proud presumption is this when the Lord himselfe praieth Not my will but thine be done the seruant should absolutely and presently exact the thing he craues without respect of the lord his pleasure at all When thou askest saith Basil that which is meete to aske at the Lord his hands de vita solit cap. 2 cease not till thou hast receaued it perhaps for that cause be giues thee not preseÌ„tly that he may teach thee perseuerance and that thou maist learne what the guift of God is and
onely say you is that which we entertaine very confidently hould for a truth Namely that the gracelesse boy did gracelesly counterfeyt knavishly beare the world in hand he was really possessed of Sathan when there was no such matter at all But as concerning your selfe we doe vndoubtedly thinke that the same was simply your errour in iudgment but no purposed errour in your practise at all This is your testimony Seeing therefore you are so perswaded of me in your consciences how cōes it to passe that through your whole discourses you haue traduced me as a deceauer And namely in your Answer pag 39. 40. where speaking of Somers his supernaturall knowledg you shift that of by ascribing his predictions c to some cunning confederacyes with me Why should we wonder at all say you that two cunning companyons consederate togither before should conclude such a course betwene thēselues as the one by the helpe of the other should prognosticate such strange incredible euents c. Haue you there striuen against conscience Or hath the truth heere preuayled against your willes Surely it is wonderfull that men seeking fauour by soothing and hoping for some great aduantage by iustifying other mens indirect courses should notwithstanding the B. his violent dealing whether by imprisonment or by pretence of law whatsoeuer notwithstanding also M. Harsnets authenticall booke written for confirmation of the sayd proceedings yea notwithstanding their owne endes and long tedious paynes to compasse them should I say notwithstanding all these after many discourses cleare me altogether of the pretended crīe and thereby withall shew that the Bishop hath dealt vniustly M. Harsnet falsly 1 Cor. 3 19. and they themselues wickedly in ioyning hands to oppresse the guiltlesse It is the Lord which catcheth the wise in their owne craftynesse Neither doe I onely in this your confession behold the victory of truth ouer your selues but am forced to prayse the Lord for his great goodnesse which hath made the BISHOPE himselfe the greatest Aduersary to this cause to subscribe to my vprightnesse in it Your booke comes forth by his priuiledge No doubt it was perused perused againe It lay a long time in his handes And who can tell whether this testimony be not his owne wordes set downe vnder your names It may be the Lord hath touched his heart for that he did against me And howbeit publique cōfession were requisite in publique wrongs yet it is some ease to sōe mens consciences to make confession couertly whatsoeuer therfore other men may thinke That he would be farre from such acknowledgment yet I wlll hope the best as knowing there is nothing vnpossible vnto the Lord. Neyther skills it greatly whether he writt these very wordes or no considering he hath allowed approued them at least in giuing them publique passage and priuiledg to thē And therefore though S. Paul when the Serieants were sent vnto him refused to depart secretly out of prison but as by publique authority he was cast in so by the same authority he would be brought forth yet I being beyond comparison inferior to him will rest my selfe content in hauing my open iniuries satisfied though but in this secret manner How good and gratious is the Lord which bringeth forth the righteousnesse of his seruants as the light their iudgment as the noone day As he dealt with our heade Christ in causing Pilat to pronounce him a iust man so he dealeth with his poore members accordinge to their seuerall degrees Hee made Saul acknowledg Dauid more righteous then him selfe Agrippa Festus to say of Paule He had done nothing worthy of bonds To this therefore onely wise gratious Mighty Lord God the father the Sonne the holy spirit be all honor praise for euer euer Amen FINIS