A Survey of Dialogical Discourses, Survey 3
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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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, R…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 Levi…: 19, 21 Engaſtrumeni, Ariſtoph. in ueſpis, If a man or a woman hauehave 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 f…retelling (forſooth) things to come, which the Grecians tearme Bowel-prophets, f…r that the diuel ſeemed to ſpeake from with in them. VntoUnto whome Ariſtophanes alludeth. But imitating (ſaith he) the ſoothſaying & wiſdome of Euricles, by entring into other mens bellyes, I hau… poured forth many pritty comicall things. VponUpon which wordes the Scholiast writeth thus. This Euricles was a Belly-speaker, mar: 5:5, 13, & 9, 22,& was reported at Athens to hauehave prophecied many true things by a diuell that was within him. Afterwards this manner of ſpirit was called Python, as Th. Beza witneſſeth vponupon 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 themſ…ues into the fier, & into the water, and runne to their owne deſtruction moſt greedeely, as alſo the ſwine did hauing receaued theſe gueſts: w…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, tocMat, 12, 45: dwell in them, and whē theſe men (whome we call Demoniacks) were healed, to(d)Math: 12 43, & 17, 2… Lu…e 4, 5 4… 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 … 25Goe out of him (ſaith Chriſt) and enter no more into him: Then the ſpirit came out. Againeh)mar. 1, 25: Hold thy peace, & come out …f him: then the Diuel came out of him. And againe,i… mar. 5:13, math. 8, 31: Come out of the man, thou vncleane ſpirit Heerevpon the diuels beſought Ieſus, ſaying: If thou caſt vsus out, ſuff…r vsus &c Then the vnclean… ſpirit went out, & e…r…d in to the ſwine. pag, 3 4 38.Where therefore the Diſcourſers ſay, there be no proper w…rds or tearmes in any of the places …f Scripture concerning Demoniacks exp…eſſing an eſſentiall p…ſſ…ſſion, the falſhood thereof is ſo manifeſt, that it may be ſeene with ones forhead. For what words or te…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, & cāe out of the graues, and appeared vntounto 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 ingr…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 hauehave a diu…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 hauehave a man to enter into an houſe, which comes no nearer then the dore: to dwell and be in it, and yet neuer come vnderunder 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 Ir…lan… ▪ So if the diuell could truly affirme he was neuer in any mans b…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. 3… CyPria…: de Idol. uanitate Aug. lib. de ciuit. Dei 8, in f…ne ca…itis 26, A…g de d … doem: cap. 5. in Ma…, 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 b… 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 com…cl… 4: cap 9, …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 whō it is not doubted but that they are: why babble they, in Mar. 5, 9, in Mat: 12 26that 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 vsus to enquire. Beza thus: Not of eueryevery eiection of diuell… out of the bodies of men may this be affirmed which Chriſt heere concludeth: Chem. Har. li: 3 cap, 37. pag 70 in Ma, 9:29, queſt: 38:ſeing by couenant ſathan may eaſily ſuffer himſelf to be caſt forth of the bodies, that he might the more eaſily raigne in the ſoules of men. Sometimes (ſaith Chemnicius) wicked spirits god permitting them, homines ingrediuntur, doe enter into men, and doe ſo poſſeſſe them, that they dwell in them, Dan. de ſortiariis, Chy in Math. 8.28abuſinge their members after their will. Danaeus ſaith, faſting I refer to prayer, but not to the man poſſ…ſſed, as though by the scarcity of victualls and want of meate, ſibi inhereutem Daemonem expellat, he ſhould ezpell the diuel inherent in him. For diuels in Demoniacks are not fed with meate Againe, the diuels in the bodies of men hauehave ſpoken. Chitreus giueth this definition of poſſeſſion, that it is an affliction of the body deliuered into the p…wer of Sathan, where by both the body is Out of the fits the actions of Demoniaks be g…uerned of the mīd, in their fits by …e Diuel.rent, and of Sathan inhabited, and the actions of the memb…rs gouerned not …f the minde only, but partly alſo by the vncleane spirit. Againe ſaith he: As spirits be in a place definitiuely, ſo a diuel, or more, occupy the body deliuered vp to their power: meaninge that they are definitiuely in thoſe bodies that is, they be in them, ſo that they be not any where elſe.De opertib. cre. part 1 lib 4 cap 10 See further in Chytrius. Zanchius hath theſe wordes. Sathan doth ſo invade vsus, vt in noſtra etiam peni…ret et ingrediatur corpora, that he doth peirce & enter into our bodies, and doth diuerſly affect the ſame within. I ſee not why we ſhould not ſay ſubſtantia ſua illos ingredi, that they doe in their ſubſtance enter into them. And after ſome arguments to proue this, that they doe ſubſtantia ſuae manere in hominibus, in their ſubſtance or eſſence abide in men: he concludeth thus. Theſe things ſhew that diuels hauehave bene with in in ſuch kinde of men: and moued them hither and thither, as agents internall, not externall. Piſcator vponupon theſe wordes Luke 8.2. and c…rtaine weomen which he had healed of euill ſpirits, ſaith: a, hic n…tat adiunctum inherens. This prepoſition of, noteth here the adiunct inherēt. VVhereby it is euident that he houldeth the inherency of ſpirits in de moniacks Otho Caſman maketh his entrance to his treatiſe of poſſeſſion thus.Angelograp pag 606 what poſſeſſion is, There remayneth to be treated of, the entring of diuels into the bodies of men & poſſ…ſſion. He proceedeth. Poſſ…ſſion is an action of the diuel, wherein the diuel entring into the body of man doth poſſ…ſſe it, and exerciſe vponupon it the power receaued, to hurt and torment it. The partes of poſſeſſion be two: the ingreſſe of the ſpirit, the exerciſing of the power that is graunted. The ingreſſe is, wherby the diuel firſt entreth into the body, and hauing entred doth poſſeſſe it. and is in it. And handlinge this queſtion how or after what manner diuels be in men: he reſolueth it thus we ſay that they be in them indeed even perſonally. For further confirmation of this inherencie you hauehave Centuria 1. lib. 2. pag. 502. Socrat. 7. Cap. 8. Minutius in Octavio. Dioniſius Carthuſianus in Luc. 4.35. et in Math.. 8.28. Sculietus in Medulla theolog. patrū. pag. 55. Luther. in Math. 8.28. Eraſm. annot. in Act. Apo: 19.16. Gualther in Mar. 5.1. Brentius in Mar. 5.9. Bucer in Mat. 17.21. Ph. Melanchton lib. Epiſtolarū. Bullinger: Decad. 5. Ser. 3. Marlorat▪ in Marc. 5.15. Muſc. in Math. 12.27.43. D. Fulke his anſwer to the Rhem. Teſt. Math. 17.21.
By the premiſſes, not only the falſhood, but the blaſphemy of theſe men doth manifeſtly appeare: who feare not to call this ſaid doctrine of inherencie of Sathan in Demoniacks, Answere pag 17, 18 & 341,an abſurd & ſenſleſſe opinion, and to reiect it, as fond and frivolous. Hereby alſo doth appeare their notorious impudency, in that notwithſtandinge the premiſſes (whereof they cannot be altogether ignorant,Dialog. Diſc epiſtle to the Reader pag, 2: pag 39, ſpecially if they hauehave ranſact ſo many libraries as they affirme they hauehave) they ſtick not to ſay, that if the ſeuerall writings of the moſt iudiciall & ſoundeſt Diuines be exactly conſidered, we ſhall finde, that not any one of them all d…e vnderſtand by Demoniacks, any ſuch perſons as are eſſentially poſſeſt with a diuel inherently in them. pag, 55. 56, 57, 58Why I my ſelf hauehave heretofore …ewed the contrary, out of Tertullian, Ciprian, Chriſoſt…me Peter Ma…tyr, Philip Melanchton, Beza Vogellius, and Danaeus, as appeareth by the Doctrine. You might well therefore hauehave ommitted theſe wordes, vntill you had returned anſwer to thoſe teſtimonies, Anſ. pag, 33and likewiſe hauehave reſtrayned to ſay that the …ſſentia…l poſſ…ſſion of deuels is only a deviſe & dreame of my owne. Bu… it may in no ca…e be-forgotten, that whiles you tell vsus all ſound Divines are on your ſide, and not ſomuch as one with vsus, you pro…uce not a ſentence out of ſound or vnſound Diuine: ſo as if we will beleeue what you ſay,prou. 14:15, we muſt take it of your word: which no wiſe man will doe. Wherevppon it commeth that ye are ſo barren heere …n the allegations o… …athers and new writers, who ſo abound therein elſe where: we may eaſily co…ecture. How Bucer, Calvin, Marlo…a…, Gua…ter & Beza, whome you coate in the margent as Diuines on your ſide, be not with you but againſt you, it is plaine by that is aforeſaid. Wherein we may be ſomewhat confirmed by their ſilence, but more by go…g to the places ye your ſelues hauehave quoted.
Laſtly, if diuels hauehave no ſuch in being in the poſſ…ſſed, ſurely ſome writer of account conſidering the letter of the ſcripture is ſo plaine for it, and the generall miſtake of all former ages, would in his expoſition hauehave admoniſhed the Reader leaſt he ſhould ſtumble at theſe words in taking them litterally. But I finde no ſuch caution in an…, tha… (ſearching) I hauehave ſeene, till M. Deacon and M Walker now af…e… ſixtee…e …undreth yeares hauehave T…m…ly put vsus in mynde thereof. …nly Peter Lumbard ſaith,Sent. lib: 2 diſt, 8. q, 4 It is not ſo pe…spicuous whether th…y e…tred really, or no. But this was his ſchoole faſhion: to finde a kno…n a bulruſh. Yet hee doth not reſolue of the matter. But it may be theſe ſmart diſputers hauehave found out that, wherein the ſkil and …earning of all other hauehave fa…led. Let vsus therefore weigh their reaſons, when firſt we hauehave heard their anſwer to our foreſaid ma…e reaſon taken from the goſpell.
Wheras the letter of entrīg in, of dwelling, of caſting out is vrged theſe men ſhift of theſe places thus, They are not to be conſtrued according to the letter. why ſo? Becauſe the Lord ſaith,Reu. 3.20. Ioh 14.2… And I will enter in vntounto him. And againe, and we will come vntounto him & dwell with him: which are not to be vnderſtood of an eſſentiall entrance.
I anſwer, your bouldnes is exceeding great, who vponupon ſo ſlender a foundation durſt preſume to depart from the euident wordes of the ſcripture, ſo frequently vſed without any chaunge. Becauſe the Lord ſaith I will enter, a d yet doth not enter eſſentially, doth it therevpon follow, that al…o diuels where it is ſaid they doe enter, ſhould not enter eſſentially? Is there the like reaſon of the infinite an… of fin…e ſpirits? God being eueryevery where cannot be ſai…e to enter but figuratiuely, but in the creature, which entreth by chaunging p…ace it is alwaies proper: except we can ſhew neceſſary reaſon to the contrary. By as good cōſequence you might proue that Aar…n the high preiſt neuer entred into the tabernacle of the congregation eſſentia…y. The Lord commaunded the Iſraelites to make a tab r…acle for him, Exod 2…:5, p…al ….7.9that he might dwel amongſt them. And Dauid willeth the euerlaſting d ores to lift vp their heads, that the king of glory might …ter in but …ay you, the King of glory did neuer enter in eſſentially, and therefore where it it is ſaid that A…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 vponupon eueryevery 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 vsus a poſſeſſion which was effected by darting only cogitations into the heart, we will yeald vntounto 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. …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 hauehave this for your propoſition: Theſe words entring into wherſoeuer they be foūd 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 e…tring in, Answ. page 15. and 21.& going out of the parties poſſeſſed, they ſpeake it only by Metaph…re. And this you proue by Mark. 1.23. which place you ſhew at large cannot be taken in the li…erall ſence. Answpa. 17 How Marke 123 is to be expounded, it is euident by comparing it with Lu…e 4, …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 n…t be taken in the literall ſence, but metaph…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 hauehave relation to the diuel, were not to be vnderſtood literally, are they therefore to be taken metaphoricallie, as eueryevery where you tell vsus? No verily. There were a plain… 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 …6and 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 hauehave be thought you of this error, which a ſcholler at the grāmer ſchole would quickly correct. If you will needes hauehave 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 eueryevery Scripture of this kinde metaphoricall? why you your ſelues doe tell vsus, that where in Luk. 4.35. a man is ſaid to hauehave a spirit of an vnclean diuel, that by spirit we muſt vnderſtande the impulſion, motion, or inſpiration of the spirit. Answere pag 20, 21According to which ſence, ſay you, the word spirit is vſualy obſerued both in th… olde a…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, 2….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 …e…th not that this is ſpoken metonimice, and not metaphoric. In the fift of the Actes it is ſaid of …annias, that satan filled his heart This filling, ſay you, in page 48, was effectiuely. Here then likewiſe is a m…tonymie, wel metonymie or metaphore, or whatſoeuer …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 pr…uoked Dauid to number Iſra…ll. The deuil hath bene a murtherer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, becauſe there is no truth in him whe… h… ſp…ak th a li…, 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 th…u be the ſonne of God &c. The diuel ſet him on a pynna…e of the temple. The Angels ſinned… are caſt downe into hell, to be kept vntounto damnation. The angel k pt not their …irst estate. They are reſerued vntounto he iudgment of the great day. Heerevnto many more places might be added, but theſe ſuffice to ſhew that many thi…gs spoken of ſp…t… are to be vnderſtood acc…rding to the very lat r. And ſo ar… without con…rouerſ… in particuler the places to be interpreted concerning the diuels entring into Demoniacks, & go…ng out of them no…it…ſtanding whatſoeuer theſe vaine …anglers, …hich would be …o…tors & yet vnderſtand not what they ſpeake neither whe…eo… affirme) prattle to the contrary. Which iangling of the…s is very ca…e, to be reſelled, by the rules which a…l men deliuer, when the …tures are figuratiuely to be vnderſtood,Zanchius de o…e…b, …ede pag. 66 and when not figura…uely, but properly. Then namely are they t… be vnderſtood figu…a…ue…y, when the ſ…nce, which the very words taken according to … p…per …g…i…cati n ſounds, agreeth not with other ſcr…tu…e, and with the a…al…gy of faith: but is rather repugnant to the holy ſcriptu…es. On the other de… pro…erly, when it doth not repugne. Now to what teſtimonies of the ſcripture, is this entring in, and g…einge out r…pug…a…, being literallie vn…erſtood?Ad Gen. li 11, caP 1. what ſcripture is there that contrarieth this ingr…ſſe, inb…inge, and goeing out of the ſpirit we ſpeake of? To the former rule let vsus adde this other of Au…uſtine. Wh n any thing (ſaith he) is f und in the Scripture, which cannot with…ut an ab…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 otherwi…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 vponupon him. And ſo ye goe on …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 vponupon 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 vponupon him.1, Sam 10, 6 10:
I anſwer firſt, that Saule was no Demoniack. Secondly, I hauehave 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon 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 giuegive to the aforeſaid maine argument prouing a real poſſeſſion. Let vsus 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, n…r the grecke word etema, which is ordinarily obſerued in the new teſtament to ſet forth poſſ…ſſ…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 inh…rency of the ſpirit in Dem…nia…ks: which theſe wordes, ſignifying poſſeſſion, nor any of the ſame ſignificatiō doe not, had the ſāe 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 poſſ…ſſion and poſſeſſed? Surely neither my ſelfe, nor yet any other of meane vnderſtā 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 ſſ…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 Ciua…: D…i cap. 26 And from hence it is that the words poſſeſſion and poſſeſſed hauehave 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 vnderunder certaine fooliſh and vnlearned queſtions: & Orthodoxus being out of breath, Phiſial…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 of bodyes? Arg. 2page. 70: 75. 76. and 341. Answ.
Thus might one reaſō againſt that ſaving of the Apoſtle 1. Cor. 6.15. Alſo againſt the torment the bodies of the damned ſhall endure in hell. Doe you imagine, the Lord euer propounded to hīſelfe any ſuch end in the creation of bodies? They will anſwere, the Lord did not propound any ſuch end, but man brought them vponupon him by ſinne. Euen ſo doe I▪ Man by his ſinne bringeth (ſometimes) that body of his to be a receptacle and habitation for the vncleane ſpirit, which otherwiſe ſhould be the habitation of God, and temple for the holy ghoſt to dwell in.
But goe to, (ſaith he) What becomes of the ſoule, Argu. 3 Pag 70:all the while the diuel is in the body? Romaines the ſoule ſtil in that body, or is it vtterly expelled, & thruſt out of the ſame?
It remaines ſtill in the body. Answere In a ſwound the ſoule is in the body, though it doe not ſhew it ſelfe in her animall and organicall operations. Euen ſo in this caſe, the ſoule is in the Demoniacks bodie, though in his fits, not his ſpirit, but the vncleane ſpirit, ſhew it ſelfe by the effects.
This naturaliſt goeth on thus. If there be a reall poſſeſſion, Arg. 4 pag 73, 74 & 341.then the ſoule during the time of the poſſeſſion, ſhall not be accomptable for any thoſe peculiar actions of the bodie, which it neuer directed the bodie vntounto, nor gaue conſent vntounto.
This is cunninglie done of you, Anſ: that in the laſt iudgment you can diuide the bodie & the ſoule aſunder, that each may giuegive account for their ſeuerall actions apart. Secondly, your propoſition is very childiſh. VVhat if the diuel force the tongue to blaſphemy? what if he abuſe the other members to all villany? Shall not the creature which hath bene deſeruedly yealded vp into the power of the aduerſary, be guiltie that it hath bene an abuſed inſtrument to the creators diſhonour? We may remember heere,Gen: 3:14. that the diuels inſtrument in deceauing Euah, receaued therefore puniſhment from the Lord. If you had weighed theſe thinges, you had brideled your ſelues from much idle talke.
Their fyft argument followeth. Arg. 5 pag, 55The diuel needeth no reall poſſeſſion in any mans bodie, therefore he doth not really poſſeſſe any mans bodie.
I anſwer your friuolous argument with the like. Answere: The diuell needeth none of your actuall poſſeſſion, therefore he neuer poſſeſſed any actually, which you ſay ſometimes he did. The diuel needeth not to tempt men: therefore he doth not tempt any.
But you ſay, Argu. 6 pag, 75The diuell neuer receaued larger commiſſion againſt any mans bodie, then againſt Iobs, & yet was not he eſſentially poſſ…ſſed, therefore there was neuer any poſſeſſed eſſentiallie
This argument halteth on the right leg, and is like to this: Anſ. Iob had not (that we reade) the pal…y, the ſtone, the collick, therefore ther… are no ſuch diſeaſes. If you will hauehave this an argument, let this be your propoſition, and heereafter prooue it All the diſeaſes & infirmities the body of man is ſubi…ct vntounto by Sathan, th…ſe had Iob.
Iob. 2.6.God permitted the diuel to aſſlict Iob in his bodie, which before he had denyed him: doth it therevpon follow that he might d…e to the body of Iob what he would?The kilinge of him e…cepted which he was expreſſlye for bid to doe. Mat. 4.5.8 To the diuel great power likewiſe was graunted ouer the bleſſed bodie of our Sauiour. He tooke & carried it (in the ayre) out of the wilderneſſe vntounto Ieruſalem, and ſett it on a pynacle of the temple, and from thence he had it to an exceeding high mountaine. Had Sathan becauſe of this leaue and permiſſion, abſolute and full power ouer Chriſts & Iobs bodies, & not a limyted power? Againe, were this ſo, yet it may well be that though the diuel could, yet he would not enter into Iob. Becauſe the marke the diuell aymed at, was to draw Iob from his fearing of God, and eſchewing of euill, to the committing of euill, and blaſpheminge of God to his face: Iob. 2.3:5wherevnto poſſeſſion ſerued not ſomuch, as other kinde of afflictions.
Phyſialogus goes on, and powres out other arguments of like liquor. Arg. 7, pag. 76,What poſſeſſion (ſaith he) the diuell hath in any, the ſame hath be in all the poſterity of Adam, yea in Adam himſelfe. This propoſition it were fit the Maiſters of Bedlam might reſolue you in. Yet go on, what then? But there is no reall poſſeſſion in all the poſterity of Adā Though I wil not ſtriue with you in this point, but willingly yeilde it, Yet the reaſon you render of it is verie ſi…ly, to wit, for that the image of God is yet eſſentially in man. As if the Lord could not & doth not preſerue that little rubbiſh of his image left in his creature though he ſuffer Sathan to enter really into it. The Diuel entred in to paradiſe before mans tranſgreſſion: yea the aer carries a ſtampe of Gods wiſedome and power, yet the diuel hath an eſſentiall beīg in it. But to come to the argument it ſelfe. Adam was not eſſentiallie poſſeſt, and with him all his poſterity: therefore there is no eſſential poſſeſſion. Such an argument for all the world is this. All men hauehave not the gowt, therefore none hauehave the gowt. I maruaile how Phyſialogus could make it without the help of Orthodoxus. Although this argumēt deſerue rather to be hiſſed at, then anſwered, yet I returne that the conſequence is faultie. Answere, It followeth not that none of Adams poſteritie be really poſſeſt if all be not: becauſe Adam and euerie one of his poſterity are not by the appointment of god, to taſt of eueryevery infirmity that they by their ſinnes hauehave brought themſelues in daunger of, and made themſelues ſubiect vntounto. Adam and eueryevery ſonne of his are ſubiect to the leproſie, palſy, ſtone, gowt &c. yet is not eueryevery one a leper, eueryevery one hath not the palſie, ſtone, &c.
But goe to Phyſialogus, open your packe to the bottome. Then take this with you. Arg. 8 pag 77.If an humane bodie be capable onelyonly of an humane ſoule, then is it vncapable of an eſſentiall diuel: but the firſt is true: therefore alſo the latter.
If this propoſition of yours Phyſialogus be vndoubtedlie true, Anſ. as you doe tell vsus: I maruel how you & Orthodoxus doe liue: & whether you two breath & draw aire, whether alſo you receiue any ſuſtenance. For if you breath, or receiue ſuſteānce into your bodies, then ſeeing aer, meat, drincke, be not an humane ſoule, but other ſubſtances: either you two hauehave no humane ſoules, or your two bodies be capable of other ſubſtances beeſides your ſoules.
You proceede, Sathan ſo poſſeſſeth, as Chriſt inuadeth his houſe, Argu 9 that is, diſpoſſeſſeth him of his houſe, for ſo appeareth your meaning Anſ. to be. Arg 10 This you ſay indeede, but proue it not. Againe Phyſialogus pag, 78:will make it good by a diſtribution of inbeing: of all the kindes whereof he ſees not which may be giuen to this reall poſſeſſion.
I anſwer, The wicked ſpirit is in the bodie, Answere: as in a definitiue place. What now Phyſialogus? Are you ſtruck dead with this anſwer, that you hauehave not one worde to ſay? Take hould then of an other argument if you can goe no further in this. Thus then you reaſon. If the diuel be really in the bodie, he is there either hipoſtatically, Arg. 11 Si dicimus eos reuera, (ſay they) in the margine) atque a deo, autopro ſopos ad eſſe et in eſſe: eſſet hoc, vel hypoſtatice, vel formaliter, quod eſt abſurdum Anſ:making one perſon with the bodie, or elſe eſſentially, to giuegive an eſſentiall forme to the intended operations. But he is in the body neither of thoſe wayes. I graunt it, and yet you neuer a whit the nearer. I cannot but maruaile at your propoſition, which though it be lame, is yet of admirable force. It is able to proue that the diuel is no where. For wherſoeuet he is, he is there either hypoſtatically, or formally, but he is in no place either of both waies, and ſo no where. Nay your ſelues ſelues may be proued not to be in your houſes, nor in any other place, becauſe you make not one hypoſtaſis with it, nor giuegive vntounto it an eſſentiall forme. Make much of this propoſition, as of a rare iewell. It is as good as Gyges his ring, by which you may goe inuiſible: which faculty would ſerue you eſpecially M. Deacon for many ſtrange feates.
In the twelueth place they argue thus. Arg. 12 pag 78: and 97.If diuels hauehave an eſſentiall being in men, then their ſaid being there may be perceaued by corporall ſence: but the latter is falſe, therefore the firſt.
Answere 1, Pſa. 34.1:By this reaſon the Angels of the Lord pitch not their tents about them that feare him, neither doe they miniſter to the heires of ſaluatiō: for this cannot be perceaued by corporall ſence. There be many things which we know and perceaue only by faith. Secondly, the aſſumption or ſecond part of the argument I denie: & affirme, that we may know by corporall ſence, when the diuel is really and ſubſtantially inherent within man, euen by the ſupernaturall effects & operations which Sathan in ſuch caſe vſeth to ſend forth: which as ſignes doe ſignifie and declare this inherencie. Now theſe ſignes or effects are by corporall ſence diſcerned. That which in the generall we know and perceaue by faith, that in the particuler, touchinge this or that perſon, we know by ſence.
Their laſt argument is this, The diuels violent rending & tearing with other the vnnaturall actions, Argu. 13 pag 79.may effectually be wrought in the man poſſ…ſſ…d, though the diuel neuer eſſentially enter into his bodie: this entrance therefore to ſuch purp…ſe is needeleſſe, and ſo by conſequence there is none.
The Antecedent or firſt part of this argumēt is falſe, Answ. as I hauehave ſhewed in my Narration page 21. But ſuppoſing it were true, we muſt know that it is a iudgment, or an increaſe of this ſaid iudgment, when beſides the vexation of Sathan, our bodies ſhalbe a receptacle and place of aboad for the vncleane ſpirit to dwel in, which were made to be a temple for the holy ghoſt. And in this reſpect (were the antecedent true) there is ſufficient to moue the Lord to permit Sathan to enter into the bodie, and Sathan to deſire this entrance. And thus much for your firſt concluſion, no leſſe abſurdly handled by you, then propounded. Wherein I hauehave bene the larger, becauſe it is the maine poynt controuerted: and as it were the foundation or corner ſtone, whereon our whole buildinge doth ſtande.
Your ſecond aſſertion is, That Diuels hauehave no true naturall bodies peculiar to themſelues: which makes as much for his not beinge really in mens bodies, as it doth for his not being really in the Aer. But I will not follow you at eueryevery turne, leaſt I ſhoulde too much diſtruſt the Readers iudgment: Beſides I am more then half wearie already with your ſenſe-leſſe diſputes. Many famouſly learned in the Church both of auncient time, and this preſent, attribute a kinde of bodie to Spirits, not groſſe and palpable, as theis inferior bodies be, but of an incomprehenſible ſubtilty: of which nomber are Tertullian, Auguſtine, Bernard, the Schoole-men, Zanchius with many others. Theſe Diſcourſers take vponupon them firſt to refell the arguments which make for bodies, & then propound ſome of their owne againſt them. In refelling Celeſtiall bodies they ſhew themſelues turne ſick EueryEvery thing wheles ſo about with them,pag 81: that they know not where they are. If diuels (ſay they) hauehave celestiall bodies and enter into men whoſe bodyes are Elementarie, then we ſhould hauehave a compound ſupernaturall motion both in respect of the diuels, whoſe proper motion ſhould be Circuler, & of the man whoſe motion is down right. As if intelligible …atures had a ſimple, and not a compound motion But it were tedious to vnfould all the fooleries of this argument. I will therefore paſſe ouer this, and the reſt of their wiſe refutation, and come to their owne confirmation of it. How doe you prooue Spirits hauehave no bodies? Firſt out of theſe wordes,pag 94 Luke 24:39, Spirits and diuells hauehave no fleſh & bones, as you ſee me hauehave. This place proues no more but that they hauehave not naturally palpable & ſolide bodies like mēs. For otherwiſe you might conclude the Aer to be alſo voyd of body, becauſe it hath no fleſh & bones. Again ſay you.Hebrew 1:7: The Lord hath made his spirits his meſſengers, & his ministers a flame of fyer. From hence you muſt conclude thus, They which be as fyre hauehave no bodies: which is true if fyre it ſelfe hauehave no body: you ſee then how wiſely you reaſon. Thirdly, which hath moſt force in it, and for which cauſe I take this paynes to repeat theſe reaſons, They which can be in the body of a man to the number of a Legyon, that is ſix thouſand, ſix hundred, ſixty & ſix cannot poſſibly be any corporall ſubſtāces: Marke 5:9.But the diuels may be in the body of a man to the nomb…r of a Legion, that is 6666. & therefore they cannot p…ſſibly be any corporall ſubſtances. To let paſſe the propoſition, though the moates in the ſunne beames be bodely things, and yet it may be as many as a Legion in as narrow roome as a mans body: did you dreame you Diſcourſers, when you put downe this aſſumption? Or hath the truth wrunge from you a true confeſſion whether you would or no? By this one argument, all the firſt part of this Dialogue, wherein you oppugne the reall inherency of spirits in p…ſſ…ſſed bodyes is ouerthrowne. It can not be but lyars ſhould be taken tripping at one time or other. Now then if you pleaſe, we wil proceede to your fourth Dialogue.