Reply to John Deacon, Treatise 1

Reply to John Deacon · Treatise 1

p. 1THE REPLIE TO THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

Pag. 3, 9. 10.IT is a cunning ſleight to beguile the ſimple with, in propounding to ſatiſfy the world for any thing that hath bene ſayd concerning the poynts and parties controuerted, wholy to omit the books calledthe Triall, the Detection, the Narration of ſeuen poſſeſſed in Lancaſhire, contayning in them matters of fact, and onelyonly to bend your forces againſt one Treatiſe called The Doctrine, &c. The reaſon of which omiſſion, Chriſtian Reader, is this. To diſproue things done, ſo euidently knowne to ſo many eye-witneſſes, were all one as to perſwade that white is blacke, that fire is Ice, that it is dark night in the cleare ſunſhine, which whoſo ſhould endeuor would rather be eſteemed of all a mad mā, thē gaine any credit to his cauſe. But in points and controuerſies of doctrine there was more hope to deceiue. For here through multitude of words, ambiguous tearmes, fraudulent courſes of reaſoning, falſe coloured ſentences, wreſted and miſtconſtrued ſcriptures, abuſed authorities of famous men, and ſuch other deuiſes, not onelyonly the ignorant & vnable to ſearch the truth ſhould be blinded, but alſo many learned, which before had not welghed theſe thinges, neither perhaps would take the paines to ſift and try them to the proofe, might be ſtriken with ſome amaſe & doubt. Only they whoſe iudgments are ſeaſoned with ſound vnderſtanding, which at firſt ſight are able to diſcerne the cro oked writings of peeniſh and fooliſh ſophiſters, and know without book the ſcope of moſt mens writings in account amongſt the learned, woulde giuegive true ſentence of the cauſe, and condemne the ſe opinions of ignorance and errour. But the number of ſuch is ſmal, and therfore by theſe Anſwerers was leſſe regarded. This, whatſoeuer they pretend, was the true ground of their choiſe, yet though they will not Pag. 3.meddle with the Triall, and Detection, they muſt bicker a blow or two with the Epiſtles of both. To let paſſe the diſgraces, wherewith they lade them: for the Triall I may ſay (for therof am not I author) I doubt not but iudiciall men wil acknowledge more ſound learning in ſome fewe lines of it, then is in the whole bundle of your fooliſh Diſcourſes. To come to that which is material, you charge the Triall but with two things, & in this charge make four lies, ſuch is your compendious facultie. Firſt, ſay you, it matcheth your pretended miracle, with the true miracles of Chriſt. The words of the Epiſtle ſpeaking to the L. Popham, bee theſe, And concerning Epiſt. pag. 4.as highly the glory of Chriſt our Sauiour, as it doth the credit of a faithfull miniſter▪ Is here any compariſon of miracles? Is here any mētion of miracles at all? Doth it ſay any more, but this cauſe being about a worke done in the name of Chriſt, doth as highly concerne Pag. 4. Da…r…ls trial in the Epiſt. pa. 8his glory, as my credit? Again, ſay you, the prelats are charged with the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt. Thus ſpeaketh the Epiſtle, that the prelates (which now ſet themſelues againſt diſpoſſeſſion) be guiltie of this vnpardo nable ſin, I wil not ſay. If I wil not ſay, be I do ſay, thē the prelats are charged with this ſin. Out of this branch ſpring two other, That you report the Epiſtle to labour the L. Chiefe Iuſtice to recouer himſelf with ſpeed frō that fearefull ſin, wherunto it ſeemes he is fearefully falling: and that he would reuerſe iudgement paſſed againſt me. He which writ the Epiſtle did not dote, as you do, to entitle his Honour, an vpright, and worthy, and a righteous iudge, to deſire and vrge his Lordſhip, to releeu… the oppreſſed innocent, ſpecially, to take to heart the ſlanders giuen out of the works of God: and within a few lines after to place him in the verie brinke of reprobation. Neither doth he perſwade to a Reuerſing of iudgment (for there was none paſſed, as the Authour knew well enough) but to a ſecond hearing, as Felix heard Paul the ſecond time. Now then let the Reader tell me, if you bee not pithie lyars, that can comprehend ſo many in ſo little roome.

For my Detection you charge the Title as vndutifull against her Maieſties iudiciall proceedings, for that it is ſo ſharpe againſt M. Harſnets booke. It is more then I knowe, or can beleeue, that her Maieſtie commanded M. Harſnet to write: or that her Right Hono. Counſell inioined him ſo much, or that the high Cōmiſſion laid this vponupon him. It may be, if his owne vainglorious humor, which euer tooke pleaſure to be biting of others, did not prick him forward to this buſines, yet that the B. his maiſter, of his priuat authoritie, did ſet him his taſke, toſalue this owne credit, and of ſuch as had ioined in diſgracing the truth. But I hope one may reprehēd ſome priuat actions of the B. without any vndtifulnes to her maieſties proceedings. You then are malicious pikthanks, which hauehave nothing in your mouthes, but Ad leones, ad leones, He is not Ceſars friend.

Pag. 5.For the Epiſtle, you charge me with reviling the B. I anſwere, It was not anie contempt or malice towards his perſon, or forgetfulneſſe of any dutie to authoritie, that moued me to ſuch ſeueritie, as I vſed, but onelyonly feare leaſt otherwiſe I ſhould hauehave failed in dutie p. 3towards God. Thoſe which ſinne, ſaith the Apoſtle, reproue openly: And 1. Tim. 5. 20 Tit. 2. 15. Matth. 3. Matth. 23.1 Tim 5:20Titus 2:15Matt 3Matt 23reproue with all authoritie. And when I heare Iobn Baptiſt calling the Phari…ees Deceiuers, and Generations of vipers: when I heare our Sauiour moſt ſharply reprouing them by the names of Perſecutors, ſerpents, generation of vipers, the children of hell, painted ſepulchers, and ſuch like: And S. Paul ſpeaking to Elymas, O full of all ſubtilty, and Act. 13. 9. 10. Philip. 3. 2. Tit. 1, 12. 1. King. 18 Act. 23. 2. Tim. 4. 17Acts 13:9Acts 13:10Phil 3:2Titus 1:121 Kgs 18Acts 232 Tim 4:17all miſchiefe, the child of the diuell, and enemy of all righteouſneſſe: calling alſo falſe prophets Dogges, and the Cretians beaſts: yea when I heare Eliiah call Ahab, the troubler of Iſrael: our Sauiour tearme Herod a foxe, Paul entituling Ananias a painted wall, and Nero by the name of a Lyon: I heſe and manie ſuch other places of practiſe, giuegive me ſome light for vnderſtanding the precept, and teach me, that albeit in my priuate cauſe I am to vſe all mildeneſſe and gentleneſſe, yet when the Lords truth is intereſſed and ſlaundered, his greate merciemercy obſcured, and that of purpoſe and wilfully, neither one Sergius by Elymas hindered, but manie thouſands turned backe from beleeuing his works, from praiſing him for them, and profiting by them, in this caſe the man of authority is no leſſe to be ſtricken with the edge of reproofe, then he that is in inferiour place. Nay, rather the publike perſon, then the priuate man, by how much his example is more dangerous, either forcing or alluring great multitudes to imbrace his errour. And this doth not hinder but with Dauid, pag. 6.& Stephen, and our Sauiour himſelfe, and all the holy martyrs of God, wee ſhould pray for our perſecuters, and bleſſe them which curſe vsus: for reproofe and hatred be not neceſſarily linked together, but Reproofe is a notable remedie to preſerue from hatred, according to that the Lord ſaith, Thou ſhalt not hate thy brother in thy beart, but Louit. 19. 1thou ſhalt plainly rebuke thy neighbour, and ſuffer him not to ſinne. But this is your maner, to huddle vp all things in a confuſed heape together, and that which is ſpoken with certaine prouiſoes and limitations, to alleage it as a bare and ſimple commaund. Thus much for the Epiſtles.

pag. 7.Yet before you come to the Treatiſe, you will admoniſh the Reader of two cunning ſleights of legerdemainc, practiſed by me, throughout that my Pamphlet: whereof the firſt is, That I hauehave ſlily ou…rſlipped what is materiall in M. Harſnets Diſcouery, as, to make good that distinction of Mirandum & Miraculum, which he hath daſhed to nothing. I anſwere, that as becommeth true natural Leopards, you cannot change your skinne, but you muſt needs be lying heere, as almoſt euerie where elſe: for I hauehave replied to M. Harſnet out of Auguſtine and Danaeus, p. 4Detection, pag. 6.ſhewing an apparant difference betweene a Wonder, and a Miracle. And further hauehave I anſwered in ſuruey of your tenth Dialogue: from whence I pray you tell M. Harſnet, that if he remember the difference betweene Genus and Species, he may feele with his finger that a Wonder and a Miracle be not all one. And if this will not ſuffice him, demaund of him, whether Antichriſt by the power of Satan worketh not wonders: and whether he eſteeme all thoſe wonders to be true miracles. And as touching your ſelues who accord with M. Harſnet herein, what ſay you to theſe words of your owne? The Dialog. pag. 209. & 310.diuell may worke wonders, as Simon Magus hath done: but hee can effect no miracles. And in another place. A thing effected by eſſentiall meanes, howſoeuer it may be a wonder, yet no miracle in any respect. How can you poſsibly free your ſelues here from a contradiction? And this is my reply to your firſt inſtance. Againe, ſay you, M. Harſnet accuſing verie orderly by Sommers testimony, mine owne anſwers, and ſeuerall depoſitions: this his materiall proceeding is pretermitted with ſilence. What? hauehave I written a Detection of his lying Diſcouerie, and hauehave touched nothing concerning Sommers teſtimonic, mine owne anſwers, and the ſeuerall depoſitions? Then hauehave I written nothing at all: For there be ſcarce anie lines in it, which concerne not one of theſe three. But thereof let the world Iudge. I can ſay no more. I hope I hauehave ſhewed how indirect a courſe it is, that Sommers by threats, flatterings, and promiſes of maintenance ſhoulde firſt he brought to accuſe himſelfe, after me, and then to witneſſe againſt me: that mine owne anſwers ſhould be curtalled, and ſtretched after the Diſcouerers pleaſures: that the depoſitions which were againſt their likings ſhould be ſuppreſſed, and others publiſhed, ſo far forth, as might giuegive occaſion of doubt to the Reader. What dare not you auouch, which are ſo bold to affrme that, wherof the contrary appeares in eueryevery mans hand? If your meaning were that in ſome particular I hauehave pretermitted this, which your words will not beare, then you ſhould hauehave done well to hauehave named that Particular, as the nature of an Inſtance requireth, which ſeeing you hauehave not done, it is thereby plaine, your ſelues be rather guiltie of legerdemaine, then L Thoſe pages which you quote in the margine, I grant I paſſed ouer, for that they concerne others, and S. Harſ. Diſc. 28. 29.not my ſelfe, as alſo becauſe the matter was friuolous and vnworthy anſwere, as may there appeare, vrging the being of a thing by no other reaſon, but becauſe ſuch a thing might be. But marke what a faire threed theſe men hauehave ſpun, and how ſeeking to diſcredite p. 5my Detection, they hauehave brought not a little credite vntounto it. For I will hence proue, that in my Detection I hauehave not let paſſe one materiall point of M. Harſnets Diſcouery vnanſwered: and namely thus. If Darrell hauehave in his Detection let goe anie materiall point of the Diſcouery vnanſwered, then would the Diſcourſers hauehave giuen ſome inſtances of ſuch omiſsion, where they endeuor to proue the ſame by inſtances: But the Diſcourſers inſtancing to that end, hauehave giuen not ſo much as one inſtance of ſuch omiſsion: Ergo Darrell in his Detection hath not let goe any one materiall point in the Diſcouery vnanſwered.

pag. 8. 9.My ſecond cunning ſleight by your ſaying is, that I diſgrace by all meanes Sommers teſtimonie, produced againſt me but extoll it for me, vpholding by it the ſignes of Poſſeſsion & Diſpoſſeſsion. That no credit is to be giuē to his lying teſtimony, I auouch it indeed in the place by you cited: but where do I vphold the ſignes of poſſeſsion & dispoſſeſsion by Sommers his teſtimonie, wherewith you charge me? why do not you alſo cite ſome place for this? You thought if one part of your aſſertion were true, the Reader would pardon you for the reſt. It is ſuch nouelty for you to ſpeake truth, that any litle is to be accepted at your hands.

From the Epiſtle of the Detection you come to the Narration, the proofe wherof you will not hauehave to depend vponupon report of the fact pag. 10. 11.but vponupon continuance of Eſſentiall Poſſeſſions and Diſpoſſeſſions in theſe times. A ridiculous thing, and to be hiſſed at. The reaſon why you eſchew to deale againſt matter of fact, I hauehave ſufficently declared in the beginning. Wel I wil follow you in your courſe, & come to your Anſwere to the Doctrine. Which treatiſe, to admit ſuch an hotchpotch as you ſay, (though ſober men will iudge it, ſet downe in ſuch order as is conuenient) it is not for eueryevery one to cooke his matters ſo artificially as your Diſcourſing gallimaufrey is: but the more skil it wantes, the more credit for truth it ought to hauehave, ſeeing it raſteth ſimply as bare nature giues, without commendation of any ſlibberſauce. Firſt for Eſſentiall poſſeſsion you reproue me or at leaſt Exorciſtes, for arguing from the word Poſſeſsion out of the Geneuah tranſlation, pag. 12. 13.whereas I no where, nor any man elſe, inferre eſſentiall inherencie from the word Poſſeſsion, as I hauehave ſhewed in the Suruey of your Dialog. Diſcourſe: yet is the ſame confuted by the Originall, by Eraſmus, Beza, Caſtalio, and Montanus. But this was your voluntarie perhaps, before you came to your muſicke, now let vsus beare your ſet and meditated ſong. Wheras I argue a poſſeſsion thus: The p. 6pag. 13. 14.actions or paſrions which the parties endured were ſupernaturall, and therefore proceeded from ſupernaturall cauſes. You deny the actions were ſupernaturall, and that for three reaſons. Firſt, Naturall cauſes hauehave had more wonderful effects: which I think I hauehave ſufficiently anſwered in the beginning of your ſeuenth Dialogue. Now therefore in one word, Is nothing ſupernaturall in any creature, which is exceeded by anie other worke in nature? Then the foming, wallowing, the breaking of chaines aſunder, reported of Demoniakes in the Goſpel were not ſupernaturall, becauſe ſomething more wonderful Dialog. Diſ. 204.may come from a naturall cauſe: as that mentioned by you of the little fiſh Echneis, which (being but halfe a foote long) if ſhee but once cleaue to the ſide of a ſhip, wil compel it perforce to ſtand ſtill, notwithſtanding the violence of the wind or oare. I am aſhamed to heare men thus abſurd. You might hauehave conſidered, had your wits beene your owne, that theſe actions or paſsions are not therefore ſupernaturall, and ſo called, becauſe they are more wonderfull then anie thing iſſuing from nature, which a naturall would ſcarce affirme▪ but partly becauſe they are (for the moſt part) aboue that, and more wonderfull then the nature of man can ſend forth: and partly in reſpect of the ſupernatural cauſe from which they did proceed, namely, the diuel. Secondly, ſay you, One cauſe may bring forth ſundry effects, and one effect may proceed: from ſundry cauſes. Doubtleſſe happy might that man be, that could apply either this One cauſe, or theſe ſundry cauſes, to this cauſe we hauehave in hand. Is this your propoſition, If one cauſe may bring forth ſundry effects, and one effect proceede from ſundrie cauſes, then the Actions or Paſsions reported by me in the Demoniakes were not ſupernaturall? It is wonderfull what a man ſhal gaine by diſputing with you. For now hauehave I learned by your priuiledged propoſition▪ Not only theſe actions of our Demoniakes not to bee ſupernatural, but alſo neither any action of any Demoniake that either the Apoſtles, or Chriſt himſelfe deliuered. Thirdly, The like effects iſſue from diuers diſeaſes. I anſwere, If your skill in phyſicke be ſo great, tell vsus, I beſeech you, from what diſeaſe ſo many & ſtrange effects might ariſe, as are witneſſed to hauehave bene in theſe parties: & what diſeaſe it was they had? Whether had they the Lunacie, or the phrenſie, or the Epilepſie, or the Mother, or it was ſome Convulſions, or Crampe that they had? Name the diſeaſe. And if ſo manie effects doe not proceede from one diſeaſe, as it is very likely, declare how manie diſeaſes they had, and what they were. And whether they had all the diſeaſes you p. 7mention: their ſwelling ariſing from the Mother: their foming from the Epilepſie, their extraordinarie ſtrength from mania, &c. and ſo had a compounded diſeaſe, percaſe of as manie ſeueral diſeaſes, as they had ſeueral effects. Tel vsus alſo whether you hauehave ſeene one partie afflicted at the ſame time with Melancholy, Lunacie, Phrenſy, Epilepſy, Mother, Convulſion, and the Crampe? Beſides, whether you hauehave known ſuch an one, diſeaſed with all theſe grieuous maladies, reſtored againe naturally to his health in one day? When you hauehave reſolued theſe doubts, we wil hold our ſelues ſatisfied for this argument. In the meane ſeaſon it remaines for all your anſwere, in as ful force as euer it did. And here we may obſerue, how all that they prattle both here and elſe where of diſeaſes (whereby they woulde perſwade, that the paſsions of the Demoniaks were not ſupernatutural, but might wel proceed from ſome natural diſeaſe) themſelues do ouerthrow, in affirming they are Counterſeits.

Againe, I ſhewing that The toyes and fooleries, and blasphemous speeches vttered by the parties in their ſupernaturall paſsions, could not come immediately from God, and good Angels, and therefore no doubt from the diuell: You anſwer firſt, They were not ſupernaturall effects: but this is your Cuckow ſong, oft auouched, neuer proued with anie reaſon that might ſo much as beſeeme William Sommers, one too renowmed in his time. Secondly, that this ſuppoſed impoſsibilitie pag. 15.for either God, or good Angels to effect any ſuch fantaſticall, vaine, and filthy effects, is too groſſe and abſurd. Indeed you are the Maiſters of abſurdities, you may beſtow one where you wil, as this is a notable one and not to be named, that one ſhould imagine the moſt Holy Lord, and his holy Angels ſhould immediately by themſelues worke filthy effects. The blaſphemies which ariſe from hence are not to bee remembred. There is neuer any filthineſſe committed, but either by the filthineſſe of our corrupt fleſh, or by the working of vncleane ſpirits: farre be it from vsus, we ſhould once let it enter into our thoughts, that it did firſt iſſue, either from the fountaine, or frō the ſtreames of puritie. The Lord his iudgements are tied to a ſeemely maner of effecting, rightly vnderſtood, which you denie: that is, that all his iudgements ſhould bee effected by meanes beſt beſeeming their nature: as iudgements of committing ſinne are wrought by ſinfull meanes, the Diuel, and wicked men, and ſuch like, and not immediately by holy meanes: for this was to confound light and darkeneſſe, holineſſe and ſinne together. It is lamentable that anie carrying the name of Miniſters amongſt vsus, ſhould be ſo impiouſly p. 8blind: and yet more lamentable, that they which will ſit at the helme, wil ſuffer ſuch impieties to be offered with their authoritie, to the world. Thirdly you anſwere, That theſe vncleane effectes do no more argue an vncleane spirit, then thoſe holy effects, as Confeſsing of Cor. 11. 4.Chriſt, and Expounding the Creed argue an holy ſpirit. As if you had cleane forgotten, The diuell can transforme himſelfe into an Angell of light. If you had remembred this, and your old croſſe-row, That there is no reaſoning from contraries in common attributes, you would neuer hauehave bewrayed ſuch intolerable babiſhneſſe. Laſtly, ſay you, All this inferres noreall inherency, becauſe the diuel can worke greater matters then theſe remaining without: concerning which, wee Pag. 15. 16.wil ſee (God willing) in that which followeth.

Againe, wheras is vrged, the Diuels entring in, & going out of the partie poſſeſſed, you anſwere, All theſe speeches, and whatſoeuer text can poſsibly be alleaged throughout the whole Scriptures, concerning either Angels, or Spirits, or Diuels are to be taken metaphorically: and for …ob. 1. 7. Matt. 12. 43 P…t. 5. 8.Matt 12:43this purpoſe you bring the diuels compaſsing the earth: his walking through drie places: and his roaring like a Lyon. As if becauſe in theſe places there is ſome Metaphor, therefore all other muſt bee metaphorical too. Nay then let vsus conclude, becauſe theſe texts of Scripture be metaphorical, therefore all the Scripture is metaphoricall, and not onelyonly thoſe mentioning Angels and Diuels. And ſo we ſhal reuiue the wickedneſſe of the Libertines, of the Family of louelove, and of the Suenckefeldians, acknowledging no literal ſence of the Scripture, but a figuratiue meaning inſpired into themſelues, which only with them is the word of God. VVhen you diſputed of the Serpent in Euahs tentation, you contended indeed The Serpent was onelyonly meant figuratiuely, yet ſeemed after to reiect this opinion, and I liked well of it. But I crie you merciemercy: now I vnderſtand you more fully. Wel then, the Angel Gabriel came to Marie, and brought tidings of her Luc. 1. 30. Luc. 1. 12. &c. Luc. 21. 43.Luke 1:30Luke 1:12Luke 21:43conceiuing the Sonne of God, was this done Metaphorically? Was there alſo no ſuch thing literally done, as is reported the ſame Angel ſpake to Zachary, concerning Iohn the Baptiſt, whom hee ſhould beget? Was that in figure too, that the Angels comforted our Sauiour Mar. 9. 22.Mark 9:22before his paſsion? Belike when the Diuel caſt the child ſome time into the fire, ſometimes into the water, there was no ſuch matter Mar. 5. 7.Mark 5:7indeed, but onelyonly by way of Metapher. And when the Diuel cried, VVhat hauehave I to do with thee O Ieſus the Sonne of the moſt high God, this voice was Metaphoricall. Howſoeuer theſe and many like Scriptures are canonized by you to bee Metaphoricall, yet your ſelues p. 9Metaphor, are moſt properly a couple of the abſurdeſt Dunſes that euer put pen to paper. You goe on, and labour to ouerthrow the literall entring of the Diuel, becauſe in Marke it is ſaid, There was a pag. 17. 1 19. Mar. 1. 23.Mark 1:23man in the Synagogue in an vncleane spirit. If the words (ſay you bee taken literally, then the man was eſſentially inherent within the diuell. I anſwere, Neither are theſe wordes taken literally, neither for this cauſe is the entring of Satan, mentioned elſe where, to be vnderſtood figuratiuely. The ſame thing may bee, and is vttered ſometimes by figure, and ſometimes by proper ſpeech. One while our Sauiour Chriſt cals himſelfe The way, and a Doore: In another place he ſaith, That they which beleeue in him ſhall not periſh, expounding in plaine tearmes that which is ſpoken by ſimilitude elſe where. As for this Scripture, To be in an vnclean ſpirit, is not, as a thing cōtained in a thing containing, as water in a veſſell, and ſuch like, but to be in the power of an vncleane ſpirit, as our vulgar tongue expreſſeth fitly, when we ſay, Such an one is in a Feuer. M. Beza, in opening the meaning of this ſpeech, vſeth this ſelfe ſame example: and you your ſelues call it, A very apt reſemblance. Seing therefore it fitteth ſo wel, let me demaund of you, when we ſay, A man is in a Feuer, whether you thinke the feuer is within, or without him? You had thought to hauehave played you with this feuer, but it ſhaketh you a little better then you were aware of. For it plainely declareth, that the natural meaning of the wordes, notwithſtanding they bee figuratiue, doth note vntounto vsus an inbeing of the ſpirit. But you adde out pag. 20. Luc. 4. 33.Luke 4:33of Saint Luke: There was a man in the Synagogues which had a ſpirit of an vncleane diuell. This tranſlations ſay you, is tolerable, if by the word Spirit we vnderſtand not the ſimple eſſence, but onelyonly the impulſion, motion, or inspiration of the spirit. I anſwer, we may, I graunt vnderſtand by the word spirits an impulſions motion, or inſpiration, ſo wee doe not ſeparate this Impulſion and motion from the reall preſence of the Spirit. As when we talke of the vnderſtanding of a man, wee know that vnderſtanding is one thing, and the Man another, yet do not ſeparate betweene the reall preſence of theſe two, but ioyne them together. And to this effect Caluin writeth on this place: This ſpeech (ſaith he) is as much as if Luke had ſaid, This man was moued by the inſpiration of the diuell: for by God his permiſsion Satan had poſſeſſed the powers of his ſoule, that he might enforce him at his pleaſure, as wel to speake, as to other motions. And therfore when Demomakes ſpeak, thoſe very diuels, to whoſe rule they are permitted, both ſpeake in them, & by them. Caluin then graunts an Inſpiration, but ioyned with the diuels p. 10preſence: Theſe men make a diuorce betweene Inſpiration and preſence, as if theſe two could not abide within ſight one of another. The inſpiration of the diuell is within, therefore his Eſſence is not: which is as much to ſay, Becauſe a mans braines be in his head, therefore his wit is in his heeles. But to let this paſſe, this onelyonly I ſay to you, which by Spirit here vnderſtand only the motion, inſpiration, or instigation of the ſpirit, and affirme, it is groſſe to vnderſtand ſpirit Eſſentially, that by this your goodly expoſition, this man muſt bee diſpoſſeſt of a motion, and not of a diuell.

pag. 21.Further I alleadging, The Diuell cannot poſſibly ſo moue the mem bers of a man as he doth cōmonly of demoniaks being only without him, you oppoſe the captiuating of the wicked, his tranſporting of Chriſt, his dispoſing of the tongues of Shimei & Rabſhakeh, his filling of Ananias his heart, and ſuch like. None of al which makes to any purpoſe. The members of demoniakes are in their ſupernaturall motions moued by the nerues, by the muſcles, by the Tendons, the vſuall mouers of the body: and yet without commaund either of Will, or Imagination, theſe faculties at that inſtant being diſabled to make choice of things according to their nature: yea ſomtimes there is a moouing in the body, without the ſeruice of the mouing inſtruments at all. But in the motions by you alleaged, there is no ſuch matter. For in Suggeſtions the d…uell by deceiuing the phantaſie, and blinding the vnderſtanding, preuaileth againſt the will, and this ſeduced commanundeth all the inferiour parts, which he may performe outwardly▪ And as for tranſporting of bodies, here the whole body is caried violently, not by ordinarie ſtirring of thoſe inward moouers appointed to this dutie, but at the pleaſure of an outwarde cauſes as when a man is caried in a ſhip, in a charret▪ on horſebacke, or after ſuch other manner. By which it is apparant, the motions which be vſually in Demoniakes, cannot be by outward ſuggeſtion, but only by inward operation, as diſpoſing of the ſeuerall members of the body without the Imagination and VVill, ſometimes by the inſtruments of motion, and ſometimes (which is more pag. 22. Matth. 8. 3 & 12. 43. Mar. 5. 12.Matt 8:3Matt 12:43Mark 5:12ſtrange) without. Moreouer, I ſhewing ſome argument for his inherencie, from his earneſt deſire to enter into the bodies of men, and to dwell there: which appeareth by this, that he is vnwilling to be caſt out: and being throwne out; findeth no reſt till he recouer his loſt habitation: yea he rather deſireth to enter into ſwine then to want a dwelling. You anſwere, It is an idle conceit to dreame of ſuch a deſire: becauſe, The Lord neuer graunted him, nor hee euer deſired any ſuch p. 11thing againſt Iob, & yet no doubt he craued as much againſt him, & had as much yeelded, as euer againſt any. I reply: Whileſt we are diſputing of the qualitie of the Diuels vexation, you tel vsus a tale of the quātitie. We are not now weighing whether Iob or Demoniaks are more grieuouſly afflicted, but whether they bee moleſted after the ſame maner. Albeit this is great ignorance in you, to think the torments of the body to proceed frō greater tyranny, then his malice that he powreth vpō the ſoule. Was not his power greater in Iudas, though no Demoniake, thē in the man, whom he had poſſeſſed a long time? Mar. 5. 3. &c.Mark 5:3But to returne to Iob: we neuer heard till this day that hee was a Demoniake: and by your rule, if Iob was not one (as his booke ſhewes he was not) there was neuer anie: becauſe as much power was graunted againſt him, as against any▪ and ſo all thoſe Demoniakes mentioned in the Goſpel▪ by your reckening ſhall proue but tales. Let the ſame anſwere ſuffice you for Ahabs prophets, vntill wee may heare you are either of a better minde, or of more learning. That which you diſpute of Saul being poſſeſſed, is an idle excurſion Pag. 29. 30.of your owne▪ I no where maintaine it. …et where you contend that there were no poſſeſsions at all in Iſrael▪ till a little before the comming of Christ, one might …uſtly demaund of you, which profeſſe ſo greate inſight in this matter, how the Iewes became ſo cunning to iudge of their poſſeſſed? And why Eleazarus in the dayes of Vespaſian & Ioſephus, boaſted of Salomons Exorciſmes? I doubt not but it was moſt falſe to attribute any ſuch wickednes to that wiſe king: yet theſe men being but a little after our Sauiour Chriſt, might hauehave beene conuicted by the teſtimonie of many liuing, but eſpecially by their owne hiſtories, if they ſhould hauehave fathered ſuch practiſes vponupon Salomon, which had beene euident did begin but yeſterday. It ſeemeth then by opinion of thoſe ancient Iewes, that Poſſeſsions & Diſpoſſeſsions were before Salomons time, otherwiſe they would not hauehave made him an author of a thing that ſprung vp after him. But you will proue by argument, that none were poſſeſt till a little before the comming of Chriſt. The firſt of your reaſons are contained in theſe words▪ Thus then it is euident that Saul was neuer poſſeſt, and ſo conſequently, that (till a little before the comming of Christ) there were no poſſeſsions at all in Iſrael. This argument I anſwere by the like. It is euident that Saul had not the **whiles …ee was king.leproſie, Ergo, there were no Lepers in Iſrael, till a little before the comming of Chriſt. The other reaſon you render hereof is, becauſe this iudgement is not foretold & threatened the Iewes by ſome of the Prophets at leaſt. As though euerie p. 12iudgement of God were ſpecified by ſome of the Prophets. But I ag. 31.wil leaue you to ſport a while with Saul, as alſo with that of the braſen-Serpent, which is a deuiſe of your owne in this matter, nothing pertaining to me.

Concerning ſupernaturall effects in Sommers, as that hauing pins ag. 34. &c.thruſt very deepe into his legs and other parts of his body without ſenſe, or feeling thereof Phyſialogus anſwers, that Sommers hath ſince depoſed, he felt the …imes, but diſſembled the pa…es. I anſwere, his depoſition no doubt is a thing much to be regarded, which hath ſold himſelfe to be at the Biſhops pleaſure, whereby there was nothing ſo apparantly falſe, which he would not dare to affirme, or deny, as hee perceiued his liking. But Phyſialogus tels vsus further out of Gal…n, that the common ſence being earnestly emploied in ſome matter, the outward ſenſes per…i… not their owne obiect whereby Sommers in like manner might be ſenſleſſe then, as Phyſialogus is now. But to waken him a little, I would he would trie the pinnes himſelfe. No doubt his own meditations being farre more ſerious and waightie, then could bee in that paltrie boy, he ſhould receive no paine at al: of which if we were once aſſured by his experience then were we through for this point. For his foming, Phyſialogus anſwers, that parties affected with pag. 36.the Epile…ſie, foame, and that Scoulds do frame: vntounto which adde theſe two Anſwerers: That foame out alſo their owne ſhame. Concerning their violent motions and ſtirrings, extraordinary ſtrength, & knowledge, you obiect nothing, but what M. Harſnet hath done before: vntounto whom I hauehave anſwered. It had beene more be…eeming to hauehave replied to that, then thus to roll ouer the ſame ſtone againe. You call for Knapping of yron chaines aſunder, and then you would beleeue: as if the Lord muſt giuegive power to Satan to feede our vaine humours. But you remember who promiſed to beleeue too, if their curious deſires might hauehave beene ſatisfied, who euer ſcorned the preſent workes they ſaw, and ſtill deſired greater, but obtained not. If there had beene chaines broken, M. Harſne… woulde hauehave charged the Smith with confederacie, and would hauehave required they had beene Diſcouery pag. 29.ſo fastened, as the Keeper of Nemgate could hauehave faſtened them. And yet ſuppoſe he had faſtened them▪ it would hauehave beene ſaid hee had combined, with vsus. If this could be cleared, then Darrell ſhould hauehave bewitched him, or Sommers himſelfe ſhoulde bee a witch. If this would not ſerue yet ſome by argument would maintaine, that none can be poſſeſſed in theſe dayes: nay, that there were neuer any poſſeſſed. So be the matter neuer ſo true and impoſsible to be counterfeited p. 13ſome thing would euer be excepted, as long as wee hauehave to deale with men Lords ouer their owne tongues, and hauehave no Lord on earth to controll them. Conſidering then I hauehave to meddle with men of this kind, who, ſo they bee ſaying ſomething, ſpare not to ſay any thing bee it neuer ſo falſe▪ vncredible, and abſurd▪ it ſhall be folly in me to ſpend words about them.

pag. 41.You affirme: The Deponents themſelues hauehave ſince more adu…ſedly reformed their oaths and d…poſed the contrary. I anſwer: They hauehave done nothing leſſe. Nay their reexaminations make more for the confirming, then weakening of that they formerly depoſed. And this I hauehave made euident in my former anſwere to the Chapter of Reexaminations: Detect lib. 3 cap. 8.where M. Harſnet obiecteth the very ſame you do here. VVhereunto you ſhould hauehave returned a reply, or elſe for ſhame neuer mentioned that, which is already anſwered. But you may bee aſhamed (if you be not paſt all ſhame) to ſay▪ that they reexamined depoſed thus: namely, that now by their better enlightened iudgemēts, they plainly perceiue all thoſe the former ſuppoſed ſupernaturall actions or paſsions, to be but meere counterfeit toyes, and plaine coſoning practiſes. O palpable flaunder! What wil you ſticke to affirme, who ſpare not to publiſh this for truth? I refer thee good Reader, to my Detection, pag. 4….the place before quoted, where thou ſhalt ſee this to be moſt vntrue Whereas, I ſay, they would hauehave puniſhed the witneſſes, if theſe things had beene found counterfeit: you anſwere, as if they were diſmiſſed vponupon compaſsion, being ſilly poore perſons: and yet of about thirtie that hauehave teſtified the things vnpoſsible to be counterfeited, vponupon their corporali oathes, ſeuen of them be preachers.

pag. 43. &c.After you come to the ſignes of Poſſeſſions which you denie to bee▪ ſet downe as rules to diſcerne Eſſentiall Poſſeſſions by. They be rules of ſuch poſſeſsions as were in the Scriptures and wee hauehave ſhewed them to be Eſſentiall, whatſoeuer yet you either hauehave, or can prate to the contrarie. How fooliſh and beggarly the words be, you further multiply to this end, I hauehave manifeſted in your Diſcourſes, I need not repeate them. For the number of ſignes I ſtand not ſtrictly vponupon them. Where they are all▪ I ſay there is a Poſſeſſion: I doe not ſay, where there be fewer, or diuers others, there is no Poſſeſſion. For this is free to the Lord to afflict in what meaſure it pleaſeth him. Neither do I croſſe my ſelfe, as you vntruly charge me, making pag 45.the Scripture ſignes the onelyonly meanes to diſcerne of Poſſeſsions: and then in the 16. & 17. pag. eueryevery way equal my experimented ſignes with any of them. I onelyonly in the pages mentioned name ſome …ewe ſuper p. 14naturall effects, which in experience I hauehave obſerued in Domoniakes. But in what place I ſet them, and how I account of them, is euident in the 37. page, where ſpeaking of experimented ſignes, I vſe theſe words: But the Scripture making no mention of theſe ſignes, they are to be regarded accordingly. And …o likewiſe in the 22. page. In the applicaion of the ſignes, you impute vntounto me diuers contrarieties …g 46.after your lying and ſlaunderous manner. As if I ſhould ſay: Sometimes they hauehave ſupernatural ſtrength and knowledge, yet ſometimes …ctr. pag. 6. 17.againe, they onelyonly ſeeme to hauehave. Sometime Satan hurtes, but hurtes not indeed, &c. Touching the firſt of theſe, I hauing ſpoken of the ſupernaturall ſtrength and knowledge of the parties controuerted, in the concluſion thereof ſhew, that I am not ſo to be vnderſtood, as though I meant that they had ſupernaturall ſtrength and knowledge: but therefore is this aſcribed vntounto them by mee, becauſe they ſeeme to hauehave ſuch knowledge and ſtrength. And thus oft in ſcripture is that attributed to Demoniakes, which was indeed perfourmed by the diuell, and done onelyonly by them in a ſeeming ſhew. So the Demoniake, Mark 5. is ſaid to breake chaines and fetters aſunder, whereas not he, but the diuell brake them. And this is one of your worthy contradictions. Concerning the latter, I ſay thus, that Howſoever they are ſo miſerably vexed by Satan, as the behold …s would iudge them in moſt extreme and intollerable paines, yet they feele no paines at all. Yet I doubt not but that Satan can jo order the matter, as that the Poſſeſſed ſhall hauehave paine, when he ſhall ſee it ſerue for his purpoſe, &c. By which I ſhewe there is …ag. 48.not one vniforme order to be expected in theſe caſes: which varietie of affliction, theſe men would draw to inconſtancie of opinion. You condemne me alſo for thinking, The Scripture ſignes are not recorded onelyonly as matter of fact, but partly to helpe vsus in diſcorning of poſſeſsions. Mar. 9. 21.Mark 9:21I ground my reaſon on the queſtion of our Sauiour: How long time is it he hath beene thus? You anſwere, Chriſt respecteth in this question onelyonly the firſt time of that accident. And I reply, you reſpect in this anſwer how to trifle off any thing ob…ected againſt you, with fooliſh words without any ſubſtance at all. Doth not our Sauiour loyne together with the time, the maner and forme of his handling? Doth he not enquire as well of the one, as of the other? We muſt hauehave a queſtion of time without any ſubiect matter, or reference to any thing. Miraculous Anſwerers, which can meaſure time without any ſtandard laid vntounto it! You charge me with foiſting in words into the text for aduantage: but it is your owne mouthes which runne pag. 49.ouer with the word Eſſentially, and not any addition of mine. I content my ſelfe with the phraſe of the holy Ghoſt, reiecting theſe tearmes as needleſſe and ſuperfluous. Though whereſoeuer the diuel is, this ſpeech properly vnderſtood (as it is vſually in the matter of Poſſeſsion) there muſt alſo his ſpiritual eſſence be. That which you thinke is more then the text, is onelyonly added to paraphraſe it: and though theſe words In him, be not in this Scripture, yet are they elſe where vſed in like caſe: you are very hungry, which would leap Act. 19, 1Acts 19:1at ſo ſmall a morſell.

Whether there be a medicine or no for curing Eſsentiall poſſeſsion, you yay, we ſhall ſee after in handl ng that joint. and I am content to refer pag 50. 51 52.it thither. As for speedie deliuer a…ee of the afflicted, I acknowledge it is no argument of poſſeſsion: and I thanke you for reprouing it, though of my ſelfe I would be ready to retract anie thing diſſonant from the truth. It is not my deſire, any my ſtubble ſhould bee layd vponupon the foundation, but I am cōtent the fire of Gods word ſhould conſume it.

I alleaging thoſe words of the law, That the Lord will bring vponupon Deut. 28. 6 pag. 53. R…uel. 22. 1Deut 28:6tranſgr…ſſ… eu…ry …ckn…ſſe, and eueryevery plague which is not written in the booke of the Law, vntill they be deſtroyed. And alſo that of Saint Iohn: He that ſhall adde vntounto theſe things, God ſhall adde vntounto him the plagues that are written in this booke, to proue that men may now be poſſeſſed: you anſwere, I abuſe the Scripture, making Poſſeſsion ſametimes written, ſometimes vnwritten. But you abuſe your ſelues, and your Reader to iangle about that, which euerie childe might teach you. For who knowes not that ſome thinges might bee vnwritten in the Law, that be very frequent in the Goſpel, as indeed Poſſeſsion is? But to anſwer my argument out of theſe places, you denie pag. 53.Eſſentiall poſſeſsion to be decrced in God his eternall counſell for a iudgement. That Poſſeſsion is eſsentiall, we hauehave ſufficiently proued in ſuruey of your Diſcourſes. That it is decreed for a iudgement, may appeare to any not wilfully blind, by thoſe manifolde examples of men poſſeſſed in the Scriptures: Except thoſe things hapned beſide the decree of God, or elſe thoſe poſſeſsions were rewards and benefits, not iudgements and afflictions It may be your impudent vaine will not ſticke to admit either▪ though none can avouch the firſt but Atheiſts, nor the ſecond but only men that are mad. I hauehave ſhewed in your Diſcourſes, how the Lords iudgements are perpetuall, though not inflicted euerie moment, but after ſuch intermiſsion as pleaſeth him. Is it not then excellent ſtuffe you bring, That the iudgements of this life (for we ſpeake only of them) cannot perpetually p. 16pag. 54.bee inflicted, but ſalvation must needs be barred from all in Chriſt? In like maner, becauſe I ſay, Poſſeſsion is but a conditionall and temporall iudgement, you therefore interre, It is not perpetuall. W…ere you play with the word… meaning perpetuall, a continued connexion, ſuch as nothing may be put betweene, when as that is vſually ſaid to bee perpetuall, which is common to all ages, though it appeare but now page missingag. 55.and then. You charge me with diſputing from May be, to a being in deed. May not I wel diſpute, It may be, whē you would euerie where maintaine It cannot bee? How can a being indeede bee concluded, before it be manifeſt the ſame thing May be? If the heauens therefore fall, we ſhall not onelyonly catch Larks, as you ſay, but by catching alſo of you two, we ſhall catch ſomething that wants braines.

I affirming, There is as great cauſe of this iudgmēt now, as at any time heretofore: you anſwere, It is v…t…rly vntrue: The manifeſtation of Chriſts Deitie, and the confirmation of his glorious Goſpel being the maine cauſes of poſſeſsiō in Chriſts time. My meaning is as appeareth by my words, there is as great cauſe in reſpect of ſin, as much abounding now as euer. For I do not compare this cauſe of puniſhment, with the manifeſtation of Chriſt his Deitie. And therfore beſides the ceaſing of the two maine cauſes, you ſhould alſo hauehave ſhewed that ſin was ceaſed, or elſe ſinne to be no cauſe: which you purpoſe to doe in the pag. 56.pages following. But in the meane ſeaſon, how doe you flouriſh it, as if I ſhould proudly limit the Lord his times and ſeaſons for inflicting his iudgements? I limit no times, but leaue it free to the Lord: yet knowing the reward of ſinne, and the ample kingdom it now hath, according to the maner of all the Prophets, I can do no leſſe then expect his fearefull iudgements of what kind ſo euer. But you will pag. 57. 58.proue Poſſeſsion is no puniſhment for ſinne, and that out of the Depth of Divinity. Your reaſon is, Afflictions of this life, laid vponupon the Elect, be not properly puniſhments. It is true▪ but what do you lay to this? poſſeſsion of Diuels is an affliction of this life. We graunt this too: yet ſo, that not onelyonly Poſſeſsion is an affliction of this life, but that there be infinite other miſeries and calamities beſides. What then? Shall we now conclude, That no miſerie or calamitie whatſoeuer, as well as this of Poſſeſsion, is any puniſhment for ſinne? O deepe Diuinitie, and ſuch as hath not beene raiſed from the bottomleſſe pit till now! I denie not but the Lord may impoſe it vponupon a man for trial, and for other ends, as he knowes beſt, but may he not alſo therfore inflict it as a chaſtiſement for ſinne, or caſtigatorie puniſhment? But your aſſumption containeth more in it, vz. that Poſſeſsion is an affliction p. 17of this life laid vponupon the elect. This alſo I conſeſſe is true: but it will not aduantage you, except ye adde, that it is laid onelyonly vponupon the elect, and then ſhall we hauehave Poſſeſsion a note of our election, and ſo a bleſſed thing to be poſſeſt with diuels, which is ſuch diuinitie, as neuer Diuine, deepe or ſhallow, once dreamed of. It is a ſhame to rehearſe your fooleries. Then you will vrge it more ſtrongly, for that our Sauiour curing the poſſeſſed hath giuen them no watchword of Ioh. 5. 14.John 5:14ſinning no more. I his watchw…d was giuen but in one cure, as I remember Was all other diſeaſes therefore no chaſtiſements for ſin? Whether our Sauior ſpeake, or whether be ſilent, you are men that can take occaſion for your abſurdities vponupon either. I will not waſte paper with rehearſing more of this ſtuffe. Conſider with your ſelues Leuit. 26. 1▪ 18. Deut. 28. 2…. Rom. 6. 23 Epheſ. 2, 12 1. Cor. 5. 5.Lev 26:1Lev 26:18Deut 28:2Rom 6:23Eph 2:121 Cor 5:5that leſſer affli…tions be puniſhments for ſinne, as we ſpeake vulgarly, if your profunditie will giuegive vsus leaue: That all death is the ſtipend of ſinne, and that Poſſeſsion is a kind of death. Beſides, Offenders are deliuered to Satan by the Church, not for reward, but for Chaſtiſement. And if to bee in the power of Satan howſoeuer, bee a chaſtiſement, what is it to be in his poſſeſsion? Is not he the Executioner appointed ouer the wicked? Hath not hee the Heb. 2. 14 1. 2. 44Heb 2:14power of death? How can any one be in his hands, and bee not in death? Or how in death, and not in puniſhment? Our Sauiour teacheth that Repoſſeſsion hapneth vponupon negligence and ſecuritie, whereby it may bee apparant, that the firſt poſſeſsion is not for a mans vertues. It it needleſſe to vſe many prooffes in a plaine caſe, if I had not to deale with men to whom Sunſhine is darkeneſſe.

The teſtimonies of the Doctors, which I alleage in the Margine, you pag. 59.blame, for that they be not …ully ſet downe. You hauehave examined them in your Diſcourſes, and confeſſe they ſpeake as I report them. I omitted Dialog. Diſc. pag. 171.in this place to put downe their wordes, being after to vſe them in proofe of Diſpoſſeſsion by prayer and faſting ſince miracles ceaſed. Which poſition you ſee includes the former, and to what purpoſe ſhould I clogge the Reader with vnneceſſarie repetition? Nay what ſhould I be burdenſome to you? For in that place where they do ſpeake, they ſpeake ſo plainely, as you could wiſh their tongues were out, as we ſhal ſee in the next dialogue. If you would diſcredite VVierus, reporting ſeuentie damſels in Rome poſſeſſed with ſpirits in one night, it had beene meet you ſhould hauehave done it with ſome probabilitie: It is not ynough, for that it was at Rome. VVill you credit nothing done in that kingdome? No maruell, you will not credit things done at home, though neuer ſo ſubſtantially certaine, p. 18It is likely, if it had bene but a practiſe of Romane Ex…rciſts, they would hauehave diſpatched it in leſſe then two yeares. None of thē was recouered within this time. To hauehave ſo many poſſeſſed, and for ſo long time, and not one of them to be diſpoſſeſſed, made little for the credit of the Exorciſts, and of the Popiſh Church, if Diſpoſſeſſion be a marke of the true Church, as the Papiſts teach. And ſo of Anno 1566the thirtie children poſſeſſed at Amſterdam, the ſame yeare they broke downe their images, and reformed the Religion, as if the Diuell thē more raged, conſidering his ſhort time there, as he vſually doth at his farewell. Thyreus his report may be allowed at leaſt, in thinges ag. 60.that are witneſſed by others. Neither did D. Fulke not inveigh againſt Poſſeſsi n, becauſe it had no …intainers to his time, but becauſe it was gainſaid by none. M. F…x…, M La…e, M. Robinſon, with ſundry other Diuines liuing in D. Fulk… his time were of opinion there were poſſeſsions, as appeared by their pra tiſe, and ſome of their writings. But what needed any ſhould with earneſtnes defend that, which no man of any reckening oppagned? This controuerſie is new ſprung vp, firſt hatched, and brought into light by enuie, and ſtill nouriſhed by flatterie and Ambition, and expertation to get ſomething from his good Lordſhip. For your argument from Micacles, I hope I hauehave quaſhed it in your tenth Dialogue. Is it not wonderfull that you acknowledging Paſſ…ſsion to be aſure naturall diſ…aſ…an l a thing pag. 62.hidden in the ſecret counſel of G…, to execute and effect when and where he will, and therefore may neu r by any man liuing be auouched for certaine, that you dare ſo preſumptuouſly conclude, that now there can be nop ſſ ſsion? If it be ſo ſecret as you ſay, it is no leſſe daunger for you to denie it▪ then for me to affirme it. But you are like the prudent topper of trees, that ſtrikes in ſunder the verie bough hee ſtands on.

For prayer and fasting how it is a meanes to expell Sa…an, wee ſhall pag. 62. 63.ſee more, God willing in the next Dialogue, if any thing bee needfull to be added to that already ſpoken. VVhereas I put a difference between the curing of poſſeſsiōs now, & thoſe done by the Apoſtles for that now it is done by an intreating word▪ then by a base cōmanding word. you anſwere as beſeemeth your ab…urd faſhion, that Miraculous curing of poſſeſsions in Chriſts time was at n… hand effected by a bare c mmaunding word, but by a ſupernaturall power concurring therewith. O deepe Clerks, and men that hauehave diued to the verie bottome of Diuinitie! VVhen we make compariſon of meanes v▪ ſed by men, what hauehave we to doe with ſupernaturall power? Doth p. 19eyther the intreating word or Commaunding word exclude that? Would any men in their wits denie the work of the inſtrument, becauſe it is moued by the principall cauſe? Meate doth not nouriſh, becauſe the Lord giueth ſtrength, & the ſtaffe to bread: Faith is not by hearing, becauſe it is the giftof God. Such are the demonſtrations wherewith theſe Diſcourſers think they hauehave put all the world to ſilence: which happily they hauehave done, except it be for laughing. I do no where affirme that Poſſeſsion is a naturall diſeaſe, and therfore pag. 64. Matt. 8. 16. 17. Luc. 8. 21.Matt 8:16Matt 8:17Luke 8:21do not goe about by Matth. 4. 24. and Luke 8. 21. to proue it, becauſe in thoſe places it is iointly recorded with naturall diſeaſes, wherewith you charge me, and by diuerſe arguments verie ſoberly confute me: but ſaying that Poſſeſsion with Diuels is in the Gospel oft brought in among other plagues of God, for proofe thereof, I doe produce the aforeſaid Scriptures. Indeed I ſay, that Poſſoſsion is a diſeaſe, but adde, to wit, ſupernaturall: and a little after call it an vnnaturall diſcaſe: VVhereby I make it plaine, what manner of diſeaſe I account it to be. If you would nowe hauehave confuted me, you ſhould hauehave bent your force againſt theſe things I ſay, and not againſt that I no where do affirme. But this is with you an vſuall thing. You adde, that I deeming poſſeſsion to be but a meere naturall maladie, doe directly croſſe my former speech, where I make it a ſupernaturall maladie. And this forſooth is one of your Contradictions. But you muſt firſt proue better then you hauehave done yet, that I doe not onelyonly deeme, but ſay, that Poſſeſsion is a naturall maladie, before it be ſo indeed that I croſſe mine owne speech. If I were giuen as much to croſſe my body▪ as you ſay I am to croſſe my ſelfe in my ſpeech, I were a very fit man to make a Papiſt, who louelove of life to croſſe themſelues. To make vp your ſumme, you foiſt vsus in a counterfeit, That all ſupernaturall pag. 65.works are miracles, as if faith, hope, and charitie, peace of conſcience and ſuch like were all miracles: which if it be true, we muſt needs ſtil hauehave miracles, or els hauehave no Church. The Papiſts would be glad to heare of theſe tidings, but no body elſe, except ſuch as would reio…ce at your folly. For your ſecond, third, fourth, and fiſt Dialogues, wherein, you thinke, you hauehave ouerthrowne Eſſentiall poſſeſſion, by that time you hauehave weighed in a iuſt ballance, what hath beene anſwered thereunto, you ſhall perceiue to hauehave preuailed as much, as if you had laboured to ouerthrow your Peake hils. You pag. 66. 67.ſay, You hauehave ſhewed Paſſeſsion is not inflicted for ſinne, but I ſay, you muſt ſhew it better, before any man of wiſdome can beleeue you. I hauehave branded your abſurditie in your Diſcourſes, for that you conclude, p. 20Iob. 12. 31.Job 12:31a finall end of poſſeſſion from the casting forth of the prince of this world. Here you increaſe it a thouſand folde in making your owne ſingular, fooliſh, and impious wreſting of this Scripture, to contain a matter of no leſſe certaintie, then is the expreſſe word of God, Geneſ. 9. 14. 15.Gen 9:14Gen 9:15for an vtter end of any the like floud to that, which was in Noabs time. I do not tie the Lord to the puniſhment of Gomorrah, or of the children deriding the prophet, or of Cehazi, and ſuch others: but where the like ſinnes raigne, there may be the like puniſhment, which you will not grant in actuall Poſſeſsion, hauing put a neceſſarie end vntounto it▪ But you wil not be preſſed with May be. Much a do you keep with this pag▪ 68.Sophiſme, a poſſe ad eſſe. Wherfoeuer you meet with may or can in the concluſion, then eftſoones you tell vsus of this fallacie. …s in your Diſcourſes your skil in Rhetorike, & in diſcerning of Tropes did faile you: ſo here it doth in Logicke, & in diſcerning Elenchs. To auouch Poſſ ſſion of d uels to b…e inflicted alſo for ſinne is Cu…kolike melodie in your eares, but you hauehave ſung vsus a Iacke Dawes ſong in limitting it with **pag. 67.two onelyonly ends, that is, of confirmation of Chaiſts Deity, and of the Gospell, as I hauehave abundantly proued.

Whereas I affirme the iudgement of our ſenſes for the truth of Sommers vexation by Satan, you reply, Our ſenſes could not comprehend pag. 69.ſuch ſupernaturall matters: beſides, they might be deluded, and diuels can do things in ſhew. For comprehenſion, ſeeing you depriue vsus of all iudgement of ſenſe, blame vsus not if we be ſomething dull in conce…uing this, How that ſeeing, we do not ſee: feeling, we do not feele: ſmelling, we do not ſmell: and hearing, wee doe not heare: and that we require you would make it plaine vntounto vsus. Which when you hauehave once done, and beaten into our heads, I will neuer truſt mine eyes againe, though I ſhould ſee M. Deacon in forme of an Angel of light. But if our ſenſes were deluded, & things done in ſhew, that were not in deed, ſurely it was Satan that deluded vsus and no counterfeiting in Sommers, as you would faine hauehave it. This is the ſumme of your firſt dialogue againſt me, to which Lycanthropus ſubſcribeth as able to ſuffice any reaſonable man: but this, is but a ſmall thing, ſaith Pueumatomachus, and therfore he ſtretcheth the matter to an higher pitch, That neither any vnreaſonable man (which is much more) ſhall be euer able to anſwer it. So that now we are much beholding to M. Deacon, and M. Walker, that hauehave put all fooles and mad men to a perpetuall non plus, whoſe tongues would otherwiſe continually bee tampring.

Concerning the ſtraunge and preſent affliction of the boy of p. 21Northwitch, I will ſay nothing: I neuer ſawe him: howſoeuer you deſcant on the matter after your lying & pal…ry maner. Yet I think pag. 71.it not amiſſe to offer to thy view (good Reader) the iudgement of the Biſhop of Cheſter in his direction to his parents, and of three other Commiſsioners for cauſes Eccleſiaflicall, according with him therein.

FIrſt we thinke it fit, and doe require the parents of the ſaid childe, that they ſuffer not any to repaire to their houſe to viſite him▪ ſauing ſuch as are in authority, and other perſons of ſpeciall regard and knowne diſcretion, and to hauehave speciall care that the number alwayes be very ſmal. Further hauing ſeene the bodily affliction of the ſaid child, and obſerued in ſundry fits v ry ſtrange effects and operations, either proceeding of naturall vnknowne cauſes, or of ſome diabolical practiſe: we thinke it conuenient and fit for the eaſe and deliuerance of the ſaid childe from his grieuous afflictions, that prayer be made for him publikely by the minister of the pariſh, or any other preacher repairing thither, before the congregation ſo oft as the ſame aſſembleth. And that certaine preachers, namely, M. Garrad, M. Maſſey, M. Coller, M. Haruey, M. Eaton, M. Pierſon and M. Brownhill▪ theſe onelyonly and none other to repaire vntounto the ſaide child by turnes, as their leiſures will ſerue, and to vſe their diſcretions by priuate prayer and fasting, for the eaſe and comfort of the afflicted▪ with all requiring them to abstaine from all ſolemne meetings, becauſe the calamitie is particular, and the authoritie of the allowing and preſcribing ſuch meetings resteth neither in them nor in vsus, but in our Superiours, whoſe pleaſure it is fit we ſhould expect. Moreouer, becauſe it is by ſome held that the child is really poſſeſſed of an vncleane ſpirit, for that there appeareth to vsus no certaintie, nor yet any great probability thereof, wee thinke it alſo conuenient, and require the preachers aſoreſaid to forbeare all formes of Exorciſme, which alwayes imply and preſuppoſe a reall and actuall poſſeſſion.

Rich. Ceſtrienſis.

Dauid Yale. Chancel.

Griff. Vaughan.

Hugh Burghes.

Hereunto I will adde a fewe lines, which M. Haruey aforeſaid, a man of great learning and godlines, writ in his life time to a friend of his.

Grace & merciemercy from our only Sauior. There is ſuch a boy as your report p. 22ſignifieth, whoſe eſtate from the beginning of February till this preſent, hath beene ſo ſtrange and extraordinarie, in regard of his paſſions, behauiour, and speeches, as I for my part neuer heard, no… read of the like. Few that hauehave ſeene the variety of his fits, but they thinke the diuell hath the dispoſing of his body. My ſelfe hauehave diuers times ſeene him, and ſuch things in him as are impoſſible to proceed from any humane creature. The matter hath affected our whole countrey. The Di…ines with vsus generally hold, that the child is really poſſeſſed. And ſo much for him.

Wee ſee what the Biſhop and Preachers of Cheſſe-ſhire their iudgement is touching this child. What ſay nowe the Diſcourſers concerning him? They after they hauehave for three leaues together ſcofted at his grieuous affliction (for ſo the Biſhop before tearmeth it) in moſt prophane, childiſh, and ſcurrulous maner, doe in the end pag. 76.affirme, that he counterfeiteth, and that this would ſoone apeare, if be were well coni…ed a while with a three corded whip. Is this the fruit of your viſiting the child? you had better hauehave kept you at home. VVas this all the comfort the diſtreſſed boy and parents receiued from you? Miſerable comforters then are you. Is this the mercy, and all the bowels of compaſsion that is in you, towards him that is Rom. 12. 15.Rom 12:15in miſerie? O mercileſſe men, and voyd of all pi…ie! It appeareth you hauehave not learned to weepe, with them that weepe. VVell, I can tell you of a couple of ſuch merrie or mercileſſe companions as your ſelfes, that comming of late to one M. tames Charles of Wolroych in Kent, to ſee his daughter Clemens Charles, who is reputed to be poſſeſt with the diuell, & not without cauſe, they ſcarce went ſo merrily home, as they were at M. Charles, and yet but a ſmall thing befell them by the way. Returning home, they went by one M. Hooke his houſe of Darlton, maiſter not long before to this maid, at whoſe houſe ſhe began to bee afflicted. Now as they were on horſebacke before M. Hooke his doore, and ſporting themſelues with him about the counterfeiting of this new vpſtart counterfeit. behold, one of their horſes ſtaled bloud, and as they were talking thereof, loe. the other did the like: whereat they were ſomewhat appaulled. How it fared with their horſes after I know not, but the day following they caried themſelues at M. Charles more ſoberly, whether they went on other horſes. But hereof ynough: I will nowe proceede to your ſecond Dialogue.