A Survey of Dialogical Discourses, Survey 1 – Survey 2
A SVRVEY OF THE FIRST DIALOGVE
Though concerninge thoſe greate workes of God in freeing diuers from vexation of dyuels, at the hartye praiers of his people, wherein M. More and my ſelfe hauehave ioyned with them, theſe Dyallogues containe ſtuff little to the purpoſe, conſidering the queſtion is of matter of fact, whether any be freed from ſuch vexation, or no, and not of the manner, how ſuch vexation is wrought, which is hard for any mortall vnderſtanding exactly to define: yet becauſe Errors in doctrine be exceeding dangerous, & of admyrable increaſe, eueryevery ſeede bringing forth a thowſand: I hauehave thought it not amiſſe to admoniſh thee Good Reader, in as breif manner as I can, what trumpery lyeth hid in each ſeuerall dyalogue: and the rather for that they were intended to diſgrace that fact: which indeed they doe aſmuch a the rage of man vſually doth the mighty operations of God: that is, they more increaſe the glory of it. For your firſt dialogue therefore, It is true that there are diuells that Diuells are no bare motions or affections, but natures ſpirituall, ſubſtantiall, and of perſonall beinge: which be called Angels:pag. 1. yet you ſpeake dangerouſly when you ſay there be Eſſentiall Diuels as appeareth by their creation, as if by creation they had beene ma…e ſuch: you diſclayme this wicked opynion afterwards I confeſſe, and reaſon againſt it by ſome arguments: but eueryevery one reades not all: & it beehoues vsus, leaſt occaſion of error be miniſtred to any, to vſe wordes of ſoundneſſe in eueryevery place.
Your Mahgnitton for Nottingham, M. Deacon you now what I mean…Eirtwab for Bawtrie & Eibrad for Da…bie: ſeemes to be ſome pedlers french, ſuch as vpright men once practiſed when they ranged the country with their queanes: It is ſmall credit for you to be expert in this language.
For the ſubſtance of that which followeth in prou…ng Spirits to be ſubſiſting natures: It is generally to be allowed and embraced. And it had beene to be wiſhed, you had kept the ſame moderation in the reſt that you could hauehave bene content to hauehave trodden in the ſtepps of other godly & learned, as in this you hauehave in ſome ſort done: rather then hauehave runne new courſes: both hurtfull to others & pernitious to your ſelues.
A Survey of the Second Dialogue.
The ſecōd Dialogue dryueth to three cheifheads.pag, 40 The firſt treatinge of poſſeſſion generallie, & making it common to all afflictinge (by the diuel) tormenting, & tempting both inwardlie and outwardlie, whereas the affliction of the minde is only called the trouble of conſcience, & Sathan his tempting of man, temptation or ſuggeſtion, but ne…ther of them tearmed by the name of poſſeſſion any where. Thys worde is proper to them, whoſe bodyes be extraordinarily racked or rent by Sathan, as the boy was Marke. 9, 20.
De Idolorū vanitate. in Mat 8:28 C…em Harmon, lib 3: c…p 37 pag. 70: in M…r 1, 23 De ope ibus creation…s p…rte 1. lib. 4. cap 10: in Mat 8 28 A…elog 1. pag 606 pag, 126.Beſides you diſtinguiſh betwene poſſeſſion and obſeſſion, contrary to the cuſtome of all which deale in this argument. Cipryan ſaith, Diuells adiured by vsus, are compelled to goe out of the bodies obſeſſ d. And Dioniſyus Carthuſ…anus, In one obſeſſed there was a legion of divels Chemnicus treating of this argument, vſeth ordinarily the worde …bſ ſſi…n. And in like manner doe other both of auncient and latter time. Yea I da…e be bould to ſay that where once in this argument writers vſe the words p…ſſ…ſſio, poſſ…ſſus, poſſidere, they hauehave obſeſſio, obſeſſus, and obſidere ten times. So that where you make obſeſſion c…mmon to all men in the world in the language of the learned, All men ſhold be Demoniacks▪ which though your pallat be ſo groſſe that you cannot diſcerne how vnſauo…i it is, yet others can feele with theire fingers to be moſt abſurd. But this was your ignorance,The e…iſtle to the Reader pag 1 which eyther knew not, or did not well conſider what Obſeſſion meaneth, as we ſhall ſhew more afterwards. And therefore as beſeemeth men of privat opinion, you bring vsus ſignifications forged in your owne mynt.
After you tell vsus, that poſſeſſi…n is nowhere any reall inherency: Indeede we know, Poſſeſſion ſignifies to ha…e a thing in ones power by any meanes howſoeuer, as a man may poſſeſſe an horſe, although he be not in his belly. Neyther doe they which argue a r…all inh rencie reaſon from the word Poſſ…ſſion, as you fondly and childiſhly imagine, but ftom other moſt plaine tearmes, of neceſſitye inforcing ſomuch, as ſhalbe declared in convenient place. If now P…ſſeſſi…n import no reall inherencie, pag. 34, 40.then you commit a double notable folly firſt that you blame the Engliſh Tranſlator for thruſting this word into the text, wherby the whole world hath bin vniverſalli poſſ…ſſed, as you ſay, with ma…y gr ſſe errors concerning the Divel his ſuppoſed p ſſeſſion in man. I am gladd our Engliſh tranſlation is receaued vniuer…allye through the whole world: for otherwiſe, I hope the whole worlde would not vniuerſally be deceaued by it But I pray you Sirs, (if your wyttes be your owne) if Poſſeſſion carry no meaning of inherency, what hurt could the Engliſh tranſlator doe, to the breedinge of this opinion in any, by vſing this word in the text? your fingers itched vntill you were ſcratching the Engliſhe tranſlation:pag. 34, 3 Anſwere pag. 24. How els ſhoulde we hauehave knowne you to be great linguiſts? Secondly, if poſſeſſion ſignifye no ſubſtantiall in being, to what end is your tedyous diſcourſe that the word Poſſ…ſſion is no where found in thi argumēt, either in the olde S…r…pture or in the new. you would make vsus beleeue in your firſt dyalogue againſt me, it might probably be diſputed, that til a little before the comming of Chriſt there were no eſſential poſſ…ſſions at all i… Iſra…ll. In Chriſt his time then it ſhould ſeeme that there were eſſentiall poſſeſſions. Thus vnawares you deſtroy that you build. But to let this goe. Would you then finde poſſeſſion there deſcrybed, where was no vſe of any ſuch thinge? Surely you were ſick of a ſuperfluity of Hebrewe, and except you had Timely vented it in thys place, you had certainly dyed for it.
Where you ſay, No true Interpretour did ever tranſlate Daemonizomenos, men eſſentially poſſeſſed with divels inherently in them, pag: 38Indeed men vſually are loath in tranſlation to render ſo many words for one. But neyther ſay you is it ſo vnderſtood of the moſt iudiciall & ſoundeſt divines. You might hauehave donne well to hauehave produced the authorities of ſome, and to hauehave ſpared your former ydle and vnſauory floriſh, with your greeke and hebrew. Calvin ſaith,in Luc: 4:33, in Math: 12:43 When Demoniacks doe ſpeake the divels ſpeak in them, & by them. Againe, It foloweth that the divel hath an habitation in men, becauſe he is thence driuen out of the ſonn of God. Beza termeth the diſpoſſeſſion of diuells, A caſting of them out of the bodies of men. Now then whether theſe wordes,in Mat 12:26. To hauehave dyuells ſpeake in them and by them, the diuell to hauehave an habitation in men, to hauehave diuels caſt out of the bodyes of men, ſounde rather a real inherency, or the contrary, Let any indifferent man iudge. Peter Martyr ſpeakes thus: Chriſt & the Apostles commaunded the divels, that they ſhould go out of the bodies poſſeſſed. Piſcator affirmeth,Loc: com: claſſ, 1: cap. 10. sect. 30: math, 8, 28, mar 9, that god ſomtime permitteth vncleane ſpirits to dwel in man. He ſaith further: The miſery of the childe is ſet forth, by the inhabiting of the diuel. And Zanchius proues this inherency by ſundry reaſons. It were long to alleadge all: and we ſhall hauehave more occaſion afterwards. Therefore eyther ſhewe vsus the words of the moſt Iudiciall Divines, by which it may either expreſly appeare, or at leaſt be ſoundly gathered, that there is no ſubſtantiall inbeing of divels in Demoniacks, or els be aſhamed to face out an vntruth thus impudently in the open view of the world.
The ſecond generall poynt diſputeth, whether it be neceſſary Sathan ſhould firſt enter eſſentially into the poſſeſſed mans mind, pag, 42before he cā poſſibly bring the body into his ſlaviſh ſubiection: which poynt you determine negatiuely, making to your ſelfe an aduerſary of ſtraw to fight withall, I neuer hauing affirmed any ſuch thing. For my part I knowe the body may moſt violently be tormented by Sathan, when the minde the meane while vphelden by the grace of god, doth not yealde vntounto him. yet you proceede in this needeleſſe buſineſſe, and frame an obiection out of theis words, And after the ſopp Sathan entred into him. Iohn 13:27,This entrance ſay you is only an effectuall thruſting of the intended treaſon into Iudas his heart. de conſenſ… Evang: lib 3: cap. 3I will not diſpute whether this entrance was ſubſtantiall, or no: (Auguſtine is of opinion it was not, but only a further degree of efficacy moving Iudas, whereto I conſent) for this makes little to the matter in hand. Iudas is no where termed a Demoniack, of whome only our queſtion is, neyther in truth may be counted one. For Iudas betrayd not his maiſter ignorantly, or vp…n meere compulſion but through the voluntary mailice of his owne hart inflamed by the power of Sathan.actes 5…3, So concerning Ananias, of whome it is ſaid, the div…l had fill…d his heart, Though this entrance were not reall, yet this cauſe is neuer the worſe▪ conſidering the queſtion is not, how the diuel doth enter by ſuggeſtion, but by poſſeſſion, in which ſtate Ananias was not. Therefore ceaſe to encomber your Reader with vnneceſſary talke, and either bring ſomthing to purpoſe, or houlde your peace. Next comes Phyſialogus in, and reaſons very properly, but that he beates the anvile, not once ſtriking the hot yron. The concluſion is, The bodie may be in ſlaviſh ſubiection to Sathan, pag: 43before the minde it ſelf be ſubdued: which if it be vnderſtood of violent ſubiection, I hauehave alreadie graunted: but Phiſialogus will needes alſo hauehave it true in voluntary ſubiection, as if there could be a willing obedience without the commaund of the will. But what is his reaſon? The bodie may be tempted externally, before the minde be ſubdued. And this poynt becauſe we doubted not of it, is proued by two whole pages. But what? Is all temptation before the minde be ſubdued a ſlauiſh ſubiection? Heere Phiſialogus is altogither mute: he ſpent all his goates wooll in makinge his other web, and hath not left himſelf one locke, to worke vp this peece with.
pag: 45The third generall poynt is, whether the divel doth eſſentially enter into any mans mind: which queſtion I might well let paſſe, as little perteyning to this cauſe of ours. VVe only hauehave witneſſed Gods greate goodnes towards certaine his ſervants in deliueringe them from the greuous rage of ſathan: but whether this vexation proceeded from his reall dwelling in the minde, or no, we hauehave not taken vppon vsus to diſcuſſe. It was ynough for vsus to behould the flame, and the Lord in mercy quenching it, although we be not priuy from what fornace yt aroſe. Yet becauſe you hauehave propounded it, and that it is worthy conſideration, (ſo we conteine our ſelues within the boundes of chriſtian ſobriety,) I will ſay ſomthinge in regarde both of the Reader, and my ſelfe, deſyrous rather to learne, and to finde out the truth, then preſuminge to conclude any thing peremptorily: for what nede we, ſaith Auguſtine define any ſuch thing with danger, Aug. enchi: ad Laurent: cap. 59whereof we may be ignorant without blame? I anſwer therefore, the diuel doth not enter eſſentially into the minde, that reaſonable faculty of the ſoule, which comprehendeth the vnderſtanding and will. The Lord only knoweth the harts of al the children of men. 1 kings 8:39Neither yet doe I affirme that ſpirits doe really enter into the ſoules inferior powers and operations, as Quickning, Senſe, Affection: only this I ſay, that after an hydden and vn…erchable manner they doe apply and ioyne themſelues to theſe her inferiour workes. Gennad…us c…nſentinge with Bernard Auguſtine & Beda that the diuel doth not eſſentially enter into the minde, yet affirmeth that by an effectual application, Bernard. Ser. 5. ſuper Can Aug, de SP, et Anima cap. 27 Beda in Act: 5, 3, Gennad. in definit: eccleſie dogmat. Bernard Ser: 5, Super cantic. Aug: de divinat: doemon… cap, 5,and a violent oppreſſion he is nerely vnited vntounto it. VVhat els is this application, & neere vnion vntounto 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 vponupon 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 thē, & mingling themſelues with their cogitations by certain imaginarie ſights, whether they be waking, or ſleeping. But this is principally cōfirmed by the ſcriptures thēſelues, for that angels making their apparitions in ſleepe, performe their operatiōs 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 hauehave 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, 8ſo 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 vponupon 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, notwithſtāding whatſoeuer theſe men ſay to the cōtrary. Beſides, experiēce 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 fr…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 hauehave powred forth a great company of big wordes to ſmall purpoſe.
If I deſired to ſhew, how when you hauehave 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 (repl…tiuely) to inhabite in our harts for ever. If any ſholde affirme ſuch entrāce 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.