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
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
whatsoeuer these Angels be yet they are saide onlie to be sent among them not into them and therefore no proofe can be had from hence for assuming of bodies I reuerence the authority of â—emeâ—ius and dare not take vppon me to censure his doing yet against it I might alâ—eadg the conseâ—t of many interpretors â—ut instead of them all the booke of wisdoÌ„e shall alone serue which alluding to this place expoundeth those Angell â—f euill to be horrible fearfull sights Th y were scattered chap 17 3.4.14 saith he sâ—arâ—ng bâ—â—ibly were â—â—â—bled with apâ—â—â—ritions Againe terrible viâ—â—ons and sâ—rrowfull â— ghts did appeare vnto them Againe Sâ—â—times they were troubled with monstrous apparitions Hereby it is apparant that these angâ—ls â—f euil were coÌ„strued by the learned Iewes in auncient time not to be Moses and Aaron but wicked spirits Seconâ—ly that though they were not sent into the Aegyptians for then they should â—aue possessed them which neuer any affirmed yet they were sent amongst them in terrible formes which coulde not be but by assuming some senâ—â—ble bodies which is sufficient against you and as much as is inforced from this scripture And now let the Reader chuse whether he will rather follow the booke of wisdome or your booke of folly pag. 108. The third argument is The diuell assumed the body of the Serpent when he tempted Evah You oppose heerevnto a threefould reply First If the diuel entred essentially into the Serpent then either he became an essentiall Serpent or the serpent an essentiall diuell Surely you are bereft of coÌ„mon vnderstanding which so confidently blatter out such palpable ignorance Doth not god essentially dwel in all things But is the creature thereby made god or God the creature Secondly you say that the serpent in this place is not a naturall serpent pag 109. 110 111 112 113 but metaphorically the diu ll It were tedious to refute particularly your childish proofes If all the circumstances in Gâ—nesis 3. could not induce you to acknowledg a naturall serpent as the instrument of sathan in that temptation yet the Analogie of the â—econd Adam which wrought our saluation by vntwisting that threed which the diuell had spun to our destruction ought to haue preuayled something with you Mat. 3.16 17 Our Sauiour being baptised the spirit of god descended vpon him like a doue and a voyce from heauen proclaymed him withall to be the beloued sonne of god By which it is playne that as in ouerthrowing the first Adam there was a wicked spirit so in establishing the second Adam there was the holy spirit as to deceaue the first there was vsed a serpent so to confirme the second Adam there was vsed a doue as the first by the diuels fraud in the serpent was quite stripped of all sauing graces and disherited from beinge the sonne of god so the second by the spirit of truth in the doue was as it were visibly replenished with the fulnesse of all grace and not only himself then solemnly annoynted to be the sonne of god but also by whome all the Elect should be made partakers of the same dignity From whence then I reason by Analogie thus That if at the second Adam his installing into his office there was visibly and substantially apparant a Doue wherein was repletiuely the holy ghost then at the deceauing of the first Adam there was visibly substantially a serpent wherein was definitiuely the wicked spirit The nature of Opposites require that where one is reall the other should be also reall And the serpent the doue be vsually in the scriptures set one against the other And thus much for your secoÌ„d reply which you shut vp with a Probatum est because Reignald Skot houlding the same opinion his booke and the opinion it self is very authentically priuiledged in our English Church by publique authority pag. 115. As for M. Skot there is none of any sound vnderstanding but he allows his iudgmeÌ„t better in a Hopground then in a case of diuinitie And as for his your Priuiledg whereon you brag your selfe so much take heede least you strayning your M. his countenaunce too farr to beare out your absurdityes he plvck not his cloath ouer your eares page 116 Your third reply yealds that Sathan was there togither with the serpent but not in the serpent and you would faine prooue The diuel could apply the serpents tongue to his purpose though he entred not in essentially into him no lesse then a Minstrell can make his pipes sound what he please albeit he enter not essentially into the baggs And in this merry conceyt you fling about your armes like winde mill sayles in a morryce dance thinking your selues some iolly fellowes But if the pride of your iollity be past let me demaund of you this question what is the true efficient of the sounde of the pipe The minstrell or the motion of the aer by his breath You must needes answer it is the motion of the aer for the pipe will sound as well by a paire of bellowes tyed at his arme as by the breath of his mouth as is apparant in Organes and other winde instruments Arist Phys lib. 8. cap 2. Beesides it is a rule in nature That the mouer and the thing moued must needes touch one an other without entercourse of any thing comming betwene Now then if the piper be not the true efficient it is no marueile if no necessity force him to creepe into the bag but if the breath and the mouing of the aer be the true worker indeed that must both enter into the bagg into the pipe too or else nothing at all will be donne But you will reply that the spirit may be likewise not the principall efficient but remayning with out as the Minstrell doth might send something into the serpent to cause such a workinge I answer the spirit is the principall efficient For in supernaturall workes it must needes be the principall mouer should be supernaturall in regard of that worke And therefore seeing the wicked spirit is cheif agent it is necessary he should be ioyned immediatly to that which is moued by him without interposition of any other thinge If then you can count your game you shall see you haue got nothing by this reckoning but only a vaine hope to make your selues merry withall for a time The fourth argument for assuming bodies is drawne from the Angels spâ—aking in Baalams asse Num. 22 2â— pag 117. 118 which you labour to infringe two waies first for that it was not an angell but Ichouah himself which caused that speaking secondly if it were an angel yet he speakes no otherwise then the former similitude of a Minstrel did declare For the first I answer you argue deceiptfully in opposinge Iehouah and an angell in this action as if they could not be ioynt workers Iehoua principally the angell ministerially especially seeing it is the manner of
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
heathen To omit auncient examples least perhapps you say they be past date the like being ceased in our times as you doe say of possession the apparition neere Augusta about the yeare 1503. vnder Maximilius the first Emperor is famous which carried the resemblance of Margarite a Roth Abbatesse of Etestetten Tho. Erastus de Lamiâ—s pag. 17. could not only be seene and handled but also speake most significantly George Sabin a man honored for his learning with the dignity of knighthood by Charles the 5. and sonne in law to Phil. Melancthon Sabin Elg 1. Eleg. 3 Eleg. lib 4 Eleg. 4 writeth of three apparitions in his time one of sixe spirits in the forme of moncks ferried ouer the Rhene by a fisherman of Spire The second of a whole charriot full of monks the third of a maid wooed by a spirit in the similitude of a man And it is knowne what of late hath happened at Bertin and other places of Saxony At Spandaw in Germany in the yeare 1594. Sep. 13. the diuel appeared in the shape of a man Gallobâ—lg lib. 11 to a yong youth Gabriell CruÌ„mer offering him great ritches if he would promise to be at his pleasure this not once but the second time To him also appeared Gabriel a spirit in shew of a good angel foure seuerall times In the saÌ„e towne the diuel did walke visibly in the view of diuers It were end lesse to insist vpon rehersall of the manifould examples of this kiÌ„de Yea something to this purpose may be sayd out of holy Scripture Chrysostome writing vpon the patience of Iob saith that he which brought tidings of the house destruction of his famely cattle was not a man but a spirit For if thou wert a man saith he how didst thou know that this winde came from the wildernesse or if thou wert there how hapneth it that thou wast not destroyed with the rest Some thinge also it maketh as I thinke for confirmation hereof that foure seuerall messengers vse not only the same speach but the verie same wordes I onely am escaped to tell thee Also that they come so patt one after the other before the former had ended his speach Iob. 1. v 15 16.17.19 that one of them saith The fire of god is fallen from heauen and hath burnt vp c. Piscator saith in Math. 4 3. that when the diuel came to Christ in the wildernesse to tempt him he came in specie viri c. in the shape of a man as angels are wont to doe when they appeare vnto men And this we shall the rather beleeue if we remember that the diuel is said to come vnto Christ to haue speach with Christ that the tempted him in communication Hither also apperteineth 1 Sam. 28 7 8 that witches are said to haue their familiar spirits Except the diuels did put vpon them bodies and in them were familiarly conuersant with these wicked weomen how could there be any familiarity betwene a diuel a woman Did not also the angels thus as oft as they did familiarly conuerse with men Besides who knoweth not this to be verrified in daily experience de operibus red part 1 lib. 4 cap. 16 Zanchius hauing affirmed that in his iudgment diuels can assume bodies and in them appeare speake c. vseth these words More ouer there be very many those verie graue writers who affirme that this hath fallen out often Augustine writeth so of this matter that he saith it is impudeÌ„cie to denie it And a little after Zanchius saith asmuch himselfe Without the note of impudencie this cannot be denied And who is there liuing that doubteth of the diuels appearing to some heere and there in visible formes and shapes at this day Or that witches and diuels in bodyes assumed haue familiar speach communication togither Doe we not daily heare of such occurrents Doe not witches in all countries make thus much knowne by their confessions with many circumstances therevnto apperteyninge which all tend to the confirmation hereof Verily the diuel his assuming of bodies and appearing in them vnto men is so manifest by experience in all ages past and present that we may wel say with Augustine and Zanchius It is impudencie to deny it Thus impudent are none but those who either deny that there are diueâ—s or witches The lesser of which is horrible impiety This then is an other vntruth And heere by the way we may assure our selues that the Discoursers deny this latter and are of opinion there aâ—e no witches n r any bewitched For if diuels cannâ—t assuâ— bodies withâ—ut which they cannot appeare nor haue any familiarity with men if â—econdly Sathan haue no power to toâ—ment vex or any way tâ— afflict tâ—e bâ—dâ— of man as these men also tell vs in affirming that there is no aâ—tuall possessioÌ„ in these daies of the gospell how are there any who haue familyar spirits whome the scripture calleth witches Or that be afflicted in their bodies by the ministery of Sathan mallice of a witch which is that we call bewitching This is something confirmed by their oft quoting of M. Skâ—t his Discouâ—ry of witchcraft and their commending of that his exposition of 1. Sam. 28.8 c. Hereby it is manifest that togither with M. Skâ—t they hold that there are no witches nor any at this day bewitched They doe not indede deliuer this in plaine tearmes least happely they should thereby irritate the reuerend Iudges of the land by making them guilty of shedding much innocent bloud but you see that from some of their publike assertions it is to be gathered by necessary colleâ—tion and how they approue of that booke which denyeth witches witchraft yea doe commend it saying that if without preiudice and with a single respect to the truth we would but dâ—liberately â—â—ruse that priuiledged discourse c. then should we without doubt see a diabolicall discourse published with priuiledge Lastly you say that the aforesaid argument is a deceiuable EleÌ„ch from may be to being indeede I pray you Discoursâ—rs is not the question of may be Is not your position in the begiÌ„ning of this dialogue whether spirits diuels can assume c. We vse then no Elâ—nâ—h in the matter but you a meere dotage which like the butcher haue forgotten the knife in your mouth Besides this such like argumeÌ„ts be rather ab posse ad posse then a posse ad â—ssâ— as a childe that hath learned but Sum P ssum may helped a little be able to tell you page 107. PsAl 78 49. The second reason for assuming of bâ—dies are the words of the psalme He cast vpon them the feircenesse of his anger indignation and wrath by sending angels of euil Heere you afford a double answer First that Angels of euil be angels that were denouncers of euil that is Moses Aaron as Tremâ—lius interprets it with whom you accord Secondly that
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
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