Reply to John Deacon

THE REPLIE TO THE FIRST DIALOGUE.

IT is a cunning sleight to beguile the simple with, in propounding to satisfy the world for anything that hath been said concerning the points and parties controverted, wholly to omit the books calledthe Trial, the Detection, the Narration of seven possessed in Lancashire, containing in them matters of fact, and only to bend your forces against one Treatise called The Doctrine, &c. The reason of which omission, Christian Reader, is this. To disprove things done, so evidently known to so many eye-witnesses, were all one as to persuade that white is black, that fire is Ice, that it is dark night in the clear sunshine, which whoso should endeavor would rather be esteemed of all a mad mā, thē gain any credit to his cause. But in points and controversies of doctrine there was more hope to deceive. For here through multitude of words, ambiguous terms, fraudulent courses of reasoning, false coloured sentences, wrested and mistconstrued scriptures, abused authorities of famous men, and such other devises, not only the ignorant & unable to search the truth should be blinded, but also many learned, which before had not welghed these things, neither perhaps would take the pains to sift and try them to the proof, might be stricken with some amaze & doubt. Only they whose judgments are seasoned with sound understanding, which at first sight are able to discern the cro oked writings of peenish and foolish sophisters, and know without book the scope of most men's writings in account amongst the learned, would give true sentence of the cause, and condemn the se opinions of ignorance and error. But the number of such is small, and therefore by these Answerers was less regarded. This, whatsoever they pretend, was the true ground of their choice, yet though they will not meddle with the Trial, and Detection, they must bicker a blow or two with the Epistles of both. To let pass the disgraces, wherewith they lade them: for the Trial I may say (for thereof am not I author) I doubt not but judicial men will acknowledge more sound learning in some few lines of it, then is in the whole bundle of your foolish Discourses. To come to that which is material, you charge the Trial but with two things, & in this charge make four lies, such is your compendious faculty. First, say you, it matcheth your pretended miracle, with the true miracles of Christ. The words of the Epistle speaking to the L. Popham, be these, And concerning as highly the glory of Christ our Savior, as it doth the credit of a faithful minister▪ Is here any comparison of miracles? Is here any mention of miracles at all? Doth it say anymore, but this cause being about a work done in the name of Christ, doth as highly concern his glory, as my credit? Again, say you, the prelates are charged with the sin against the Holy Ghost. Thus speaketh the Epistle, that the prelates (which now set themselves against dispossession) be guilty of this vnpardo nable sin, I will not say. If I will not say, be I do say, thē the prelates are charged with this sin. Out of this branch spring two other, That you report the Epistle to labor the L. Chief Justice to recover himself with speed frō that fearful sin, whereunto it seems he is fearfully falling: and that he would reverse judgment passed against me. He which writ the Epistle did not dote, as you do, to entitle his Honor, an upright, and worthy, and a righteous judge, to desire and urge his Lordship, to releeu • the oppressed innocent, specially, to take to heart the slanders given out of the works of God: and within a few lines after to place him in the very brink of reprobation. Neither doth he persuade to a Reuersing of judgment (for there was none passed, as the Author knew well enough) but to a second hearing, as Felix heard Paul the second time. Now then let the Reader tell me, if you be not pithy liars, that can comprehend so many in so little room.

For my Detection you charge the Title as undutiful against her Majesty's judicial proceedings, for that it is so sharp against M. Harsnets book. It is more then I know, or can believe, that her Majesty commanded M. Harsnet to write: or that her Right Hono. Counsel inioined him so much, or that the high Cōmission laid this upon him. It may be, if his own vainglorious humor, which ever took pleasure to be biting of others, did not prick him forward to this business, yet that the B. his master, of his private authority, did set him his task, tosalue this own credit, and of such as had joined in disgracing the truth. But I hope one may reprehēd some private actions of the B. without any vndtifulnes to her majesties proceedings. You then are malicious pikthanks, which have nothing in your mouths, but Ad leones, ad leones, He is not Caesars friend.

For the Epistle, you charge me with reviling the B. I answer, It was not any contempt or malice towards his person, or forgetfulness of any duty to authority, that moved me to such severity, as I used, but only fear least otherwise I should have failed in duty towards God. Those which sin, saith the Apostle, reprove openly: And reprove with all authority. And when I hear Iobn Baptist calling the Phari • ees Deceiuers, and Generations of vipers: when I hear our Savior most sharply reproving 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 subtlety, and all mischief, the child of the devil, and enemy of all righteousness: calling also false prophets Dogs, and the Cretans beasts: yea when I hear Eliiah call Ahab, the troubler of Israel: our Savior term Herod a fox, Paul entitling Ananias a painted wall, and Nero by the name of a Lyon: I hese and many such other places of practice, give me some light for understanding the precept, and teach me, that albeit in my private cause I am to use all mildness and gentleness, yet when the Lord's truth is interested and slandered, his great mercy obscured, and that of purpose and willfully, neither one Sergius by Elymas hindered, but many thousands turned back from believing his works, from praising him for them, and profiting by them, in this case the man of authority is no less to be stricken with the edge of reproof, then he that is in inferior place. Nay, rather the public person, then the private man, by how much his example is more dangerous, either forcing or alluring great multitudes to embrace his error. And this doth not hinder but with David, & Stephen, and our Savior himself, and all the holy martyrs of God, we should pray for our persecutors, and bless them which curse us: for reproof and hatred be not necessarily linked together, but Reproof is a notable remedy to preserve from hatred, according to that the Lord saith, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainly rebuke thy neighbor, and suffer him not to sin. But this is your manner, to huddle up all things in a confused heap together, and that which is spoken with certain prouisoes and limitations, to allege it as a bare and simple command. Thus much for the Epistles.

Yet before you come to the Treatise, you will admonish the Reader of two cunning sleights of legerdemainc, practiced by me, throughout that my Pamphlet: whereof the first is, That I have slily ou • rslipped what is material in M. Harsnets Discouery, as, to make good that distinction of Mirandum & Miraculum, which he hath dashed to nothing. I answer, that as becometh true natural Leopards, you cannot change your skin, but you must needs be lying here, as almost everywhere else: for I have replied to M. Harsnet out of Augustine and Danaus, showing an apparent difference between a Wonder, and a Miracle. And further have I answered in survey of your tenth Dialogue: from whence I pray you tell M. Harsnet, that if he remember the difference between Genus and Species, he may feel with his finger that a Wonder and a Miracle be not all one. And if this will not suffice him, demand of him, whether Antichrist by the power of Satan worketh not wonders: and whether he esteem all those wonders to be true miracles. And as touching yourselves who accord with M. Harsnet herein, what say you to these words of your own? The devil may work wonders, as Simon Magus hath done: but he can effect no miracles. And in another place. A thing effected by essential means, howsoever it may be a wonder, yet no miracle in any respect. How can you possibly free yourselves here from a contradiction? And this is my reply to your first instance. Again, say you, M. Harsnet accusing very orderly by Sommers testimony, mine own answers, and several depositions: this his material proceeding is pretermitted with silence. What? have I written a Detection of his lying Discouerie, and have touched nothing concerning Sommers testimonic, mine own answers, and the several depositions? Then have I written nothing at all: For there be scarce any lines in it, which concern not one of these three. But thereof let the world Judge. I can say no more. I hope I have shown how indirect a course it is, that Sommers by threats, flatterings, and promises of maintenance should first he brought to accuse himself, after me, and then to witness against me: that mine own 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 give occasion of doubt to the Reader. What dare not you avouch, which are so bold to affrme that, whereof the contrary appears in every man's hand? If your meaning were that in some particular I have pretermitted this, which your words will not bear, then you should have done well to have named that Particular, as the nature of an Instance requireth, which seeing you have not done, it is thereby plain, yourselves be rather guilty of legerdemaine, then L Those pages which you quote in the margin, I grant I passed over, for that they concern others, and not myself, as also because the matter was frivolous and unworthy answer, as may there appear, urging the being of a thing by no other reason, but because such a thing might be. But mark what a fair thread these men have spun, and how seeking to discredit my Detection, they have brought not a little credit unto it. For I will hence prove, that in my Detection I have not let pass one material point of M. Harsnets Discouery unanswered: and namely thus. If Darrell have in his Detection let go any material point of the Discouery unanswered, then would the Discoursers have given some instances of such omission, where they endeavor to prove the same by instances: But the Discoursers instancing to that end, have given not so much as one instance of such omission: Ergo Darrell in his Detection hath not let go any one material point in the Discouery unanswered.

My second cunning sleight by your saying is, that I disgrace by all means Sommers testimony, produced against me but extol it for me, upholding by it the signs of Possession & Dispossession. That no credit is to be givē to his lying testimony, I avouch it indeed in the place by you cited: but where do I uphold the signs of possession & dispossession by Sommers his testimony, 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 novelty for you to speak truth, that any little is to be accepted at your hands.

From the Epistle of the Detection you come to the Narration, the proof whereof you will not have to depend upon report of the fact but upon continuance of Essentiall Possessions and Dispossessions in these times. A ridiculous thing, and to be hissed at. The reason why you eschew to deal against matter of fact, I have sufficiently declared in the beginning. Well I will follow you in your course, & come to your Answer to the Doctrine. Which treatise, to admit such an hotchpotch as you say, (though sober men will judge it, set down in such order as is convenient) it is not for everyone to cook his matters so artificially as your Discoursing gallimaufrey is: but the more skil it wants, the more credit for truth it ought to have, seeing it rasteth simply as bare nature gives, without commendation of any slibbersauce. First for Essentiall possession you reprove me or at least Exorcistes, for arguing from the word Possession out of the Geneuah translation, whereas I nowhere, nor any man else, infer essential inherency from the word Possession, as I have shown in the Survey of your Dialog. Discourse: yet is the same confuted by the Original, by Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, and Montanus. But this was your voluntary perhaps, before you came to your music, now let us bear your set and meditated song. Whereas I argue a possession thus: The actions or pasrions which the parties endured were supernatural, and therefore proceeded from supernatural causes. You deny the actions were supernatural, and that for three reasons. First, Natural causes have had more wonderful effects: which I think I have sufficiently answered in the beginning of your seventh Dialogue. Now therefore in one word, Is nothing supernatural in any creature, which is exceeded by any other work in nature? Then the foaming, wallowing, the breaking of chains asunder, reported of Demoniakes in the Gospel were not supernatural, because something more wonderful may come from a natural cause: as that mentioned by you of the little fish Echneis, which (being but half a foot long) if she but once cleave to the side of a ship, will compel it perforce to stand still, notwithstanding the violence of the wind or oar. I am ashamed to hear men thus absurd. You might have considered, had your wits been your own, that these actions or passions are not therefore supernatural, and so called, because they are more wonderful then anything issuing from nature, which a natural would scarce affirm▪ but partly because they are (for the most part) above that, and more wonderful then the nature of man can send forth: and partly in respect of the supernatural cause from which they did proceed, namely, the devil. Secondly, say you, One cause may bring forth sundry effects, and one effect may proceed: from sundry causes. Doubtless happy might that man be, that could apply either this One cause, or these sundry causes, to this cause we have in hand. Is this your proposition, If one cause may bring forth sundry effects, and one effect proceed from sundry causes, then the Actions or Passions reported by me in the Demoniakes were not supernatural? It is wonderful what a man shall gain by disputing with you. For now have I learned by your privileged proposition▪ Not only these actions of our Demoniakes not to be supernatural, but also neither any action of any Demoniake that either the Apostles, or Christ himself delivered. Thirdly, The like effects issue from diverse diseases. I answer, If your skill in physic be so great, tell us, I beseech you, from what disease so many & strange effects might arise, as are witnessed to have been in these parties: & what disease it was they had? Whether had they the Lunacie, or the frenzy, or the Epilepsie, or the Mother, or it was some Convulsions, or Crampe that they had? Name the disease. And if so many effects do not proceed from one disease, as it is very likely, declare how many diseases they had, and what they were. And whether they had all the diseases you mention: their swelling arising from the Mother: their foaming from the Epilepsie, their extraordinary strength from mania, &c. and so had a compounded disease, percase of as many several diseases, as they had several effects. Tel us also whether you have seen one party afflicted at the same time with Melancholy, Lunacie, Phrensy, Epilepsy, Mother, Convulsion, and the Crampe? Besides, whether you have known such an one, diseased with all these grievous maladies, restored again naturally to his health in one day? When you have resolved these doubts, we will hold our selves satisfied for this argument. In the mean season it remains for all your answer, in as full force as ever it did. And here we may observe, how all that they prattle both here and else where of diseases (whereby they would persuade, that the passions of the Demoniaks were not supernatutural, but might well proceed from some natural disease) themselves do overthrow, in affirming they are Counterseits.

Again, I showing that The toys and fooleries, and blasphemous speeches uttered by the parties in their supernatural passions, could not come immediately from God, and good Angels, and therefore no doubt from the devil: You answer first, They were not supernatural effects: but this is your Cuckow song, oft avouched, never proved with any reason that might so much as beseem William Sommers, one too renowned in his time. Secondly, that this supposed impossibility for either God, or good Angels to effect any such fantastical, vain, and filthy effects, is too gross and absurd. Indeed you are the Masters of absurdities, you may bestow one where you will, 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 themselves work filthy effects. The blasphemies which arise from hence are not to be remembered. There is never any filthiness committed, but either by the filthiness of our corrupt flesh, or by the working of unclean spirits: far be it from us, we should once let it enter into our thoughts, that it did first issue, either from the fountain, or frō the streams of purity. The Lord his judgments are tied to a seemly manner of effecting, rightly understood, which you deny: that is, that all his judgments should be effected by means best beseeming their nature: as judgments of committing sin are wrought by sinful means, the Devil, and wicked men, and such like, and not immediately by holy means: for this was to confound light and darkness, holiness and sin together. It is lamentable that any carrying the name of Ministers amongst us, should be so impiously blind: and yet more lamentable, that they which will sit at the helm, will suffer such impieties to be offered with their authority, to the world. Thirdly you answer, That these unclean effects do no more argue an unclean spirit, then those holy effects, as Confessing of Christ, and Expounding the Creed argue an holy spirit. As if you had clean forgotten, The devil can transform himself into an Angel of light. If you had remembered this, and your old cross-row, That there is no reasoning from contraries in common attributes, you would never have bewrayed such intolerable babishnesse. Lastly, say you, All this infers noreall inherency, because the devil can work greater matters then these remaining without: concerning which, we will see (God willing) in that which followeth.

Again, whereas is urged, the Devils entering in, & going out of the party possessed, you answer, All these speeches, and whatsoever text can possibly be alleged throughout the whole Scriptures, concerning either Angels, or Spirits, or Devils are to be taken metaphorically: and for this purpose you bring the devils compassing the earth: his walking through dry places: and his roaring like a Lyon. As if because in these places there is some Metaphor, therefore all other must be metaphorical too. Nay then let us conclude, because these texts of Scripture be metaphorical, therefore all the Scripture is metaphorical, and not only those mentioning Angels and Devils. And so we shall revive the wickedness of the Libertines, of the Family of love, and of the Suenckefeldians, acknowledging no literal sense of the Scripture, but a figurative meaning inspired into themselves, which only with them is the word of God. When you disputed of the Serpent in Euahs temptation, you contended indeed The Serpent was only meant figuratively, yet seemed after to reject this opinion, and I liked well of it. But I cry you mercy: now I understand you more fully. Well then, the Angel Gabriel came to Marie, and brought tidings of her conceiving the Son of God, was this done Metaphorically? Was there also no such thing literally done, as is reported the same Angel spake to Zacharias, concerning John the Baptist, whom he should beget? Was that in figure too, that the Angels comforted our Savior before his passion? Belike when the Devil cast the child some time into the fire, sometimes into the water, there was no such matter indeed, but only by way of Metapher. And when the Devil cried, What have I to do with thee O Jesus the Son of the most high God, this voice was Metaphoricall. Howsoever these and many like Scriptures are canonized by you to be Metaphoricall, yet yourselves Metaphor, are most properly a couple of the absurdest Dunses that ever put pen to paper. You go on, and labor to overthrow the literal entering of the Devil, because in Mark it is said, There was a man in the Synagogue in an unclean spirit. If the words (say you be taken literally, then the man was essentially inherent within the devil. I answer, Neither are these words taken literally, neither for this cause is the entering of Satan, mentioned else where, to be understood figuratively. The same thing may be, and is uttered sometimes by figure, and sometimes by proper speech. One while our Savior Christ calls himself The way, and a Door: In another place he saith, That they which believe in him shall not perish, expounding in plain terms that which is spoken by similitude else where. As for this Scripture, To be in an unclean spirit, is not, as a thing contained in a thing containing, as water in a vessel, and such like, but to be in the power of an unclean spirit, as our vulgar tongue expresseth fitly, when we say, Such an one is in a Fever. M. Beza, in opening the meaning of this speech, useth this self same example: and you yourselves call it, A very apt resemblance. Seeing therefore it fitteth so well, let me demand of you, when we say, A man is in a Fever, whether you think the fever is within, or without him? You had thought to have played you with this fever, but it shaketh you a little better then you were aware of. For it plainly declareth, that the natural meaning of the words, notwithstanding they be figurative, doth note unto us an inbeing of the spirit. But you add out of Saint Luke: There was a man in the Synagogues which had a spirit of an unclean devil. This translations say you, is tolerable, if by the word Spirit we understand not the simple essence, but only the impulsion, motion, or inspiration of the spirit. I answer, we may, I grant understand by the word spirits an impulsions motion, or inspiration, so we do not separate this Impulsion and motion from the real presence of the Spirit. As when we talk of the understanding of a man, we know that understanding is one thing, and the Man another, yet do not separate between the real presence of these two, but join them together. And to this effect Calvin writeth on this place: This speech (saith he) is as much as if Luke had said, This man was moved by the inspiration of the devil: for by God his permission Satan had possessed the powers of his soul, that he might enforce him at his pleasure, as well to speak, as to other motions. And therefore when Demomakes speak, those very devils, to whose rule they are permitted, both speak in them, & by them. Calvin then grants an Inspiration, but joined with the devils presence: These men make a divorce between Inspiration and presence, as if these two could not abide within sight one of another. The inspiration of the devil is within, therefore his Essence is not: which is as much to say, Because a man's brains be in his head, therefore his wit is in his heels. But to let this pass, this only I say to you, which by Spirit here understand only the motion, inspiration, or instigation of the spirit, and affirm, it is gross to understand spirit Essentially, that by this your goodly exposition, this man must be dispossessed of a motion, and not of a devil.

Further I alleging, The Devil cannot possibly so move the mem bers of a man as he doth commonly 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 all which makes to any purpose. The members of demoniakes are in their supernatural motions moved by the nerves, by the muscles, by the Tendons, the usual mouers of the body: and yet without command either of Will, or Imagination, these faculties at that instant being disabled to make choice of things according to their nature: yea sometimes there is a moving in the body, without the service of the moving instruments at all. But in the motions by you alleged, there is no such matter. For in Suggestions the d • uell by deceiving the fantasy, and blinding the understanding, prevaileth against the will, and this seduced commanundeth all the inferior parts, which he may perform outwardly▪ And as for transporting of bodies, here the whole body is carried violently, not by ordinary stirring of those inward moouers appointed to this duty, but at the pleasure of an outward causes as when a man is carried in a ship, in a chariot▪ on horseback, or after such other manner. By which it is apparent, the motions which be usually in Demoniakes, cannot be by outward suggestion, but only by inward operation, as disposing of the several members of the body without the Imagination and Will, sometimes by the instruments of motion, and sometimes (which is more strange) without. Moreover, I showing some argument for his inherency, from his earnest desire to enter into the bodies of men, and to dwell there: which appeareth by this, that he is unwilling to be cast out: and being thrown out; findeth no rest till he recover his lost habitation: yea he rather desireth to enter into swine then to want a dwelling. You answer, It is an idle conceit to dream of such a desire: because, The Lord never granted him, nor he ever desired any such thing against Job, & yet no doubt he craved as much against him, & had as much yielded, as ever against any. I reply: Whilest we are disputing of the quality of the Devils vexation, you tell us a tale of the quātitle. We are not now weighing whether Job or Demoniaks are more grievously afflicted, but whether they be molested after the same manner. Albeit this is great ignorance in you, to think the torments of the body to proceed frō greater tyranny, then his malice that he poureth vpō the soul. Was not his power greater in Judas, though no Demoniake, thē in the man, whom he had possessed a long time? But to return to Job: we never heard till this day that he was a Demoniake: and by your rule, if Job was not one (as his book shows he was not) there was never any: because as much power was granted against him, as against any▪ and so all those Demoniakes mentioned in the Gospel▪ by your reckoning shall prove but tales. Let the same answer suffice you for Ahab's prophets, until we may hear you are either of a better mind, or of more learning. That which you dispute of Saul being possessed, is an idle excursion of your own▪ I nowhere maintain it. • et where you contend that there were no possessions at all in Israel▪ till a little before the coming of Christ, one might • ustly demand of you, which profess so great insight in this matter, how the Jews became so cunning to judge of their possessed? And why Eleazarus in the days of Vespasian & Josephus, boasted of Solomon's Exorcismes? I doubt not but it was most false to attribute any such wickedness to that wise king: yet these men being but a little after our Savior Christ, might have been convicted by the testimony of many living, but especially by their own histories, if they should have fathered such practices upon Solomon, which had been evident did begin but yesterday. It seemeth then by opinion of those ancient Jews, that Possessions & Dispossessions were before Solomon's time, otherwise they would not have made him an author of a thing that sprung up after him. But you will prove by argument, that none were possessed till a little before the coming of Christ. The first of your reasons are contained in these words▪ Thus then it is evident that Saul was never possessed, and so consequently, that (till a little before the coming of Christ) there were no possessions at all in Israel. This argument I answer by the like. It is evident that Saul had not the leprosy, Ergo, there were no Lepers in Israel, till a little before the coming of Christ. The other reason you render hereof is, because this judgment is not foretold & threatened the Jews by some of the Prophets at least. As though every judgment of God were specified by some of the Prophets. But I will leave you to sport a while with Saul, as also with that of the brazen-Serpent, which is a devise of your own in this matter, nothing pertaining to me.

Concerning supernatural effects in Sommers, as that having pins thrust very deep 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 answer, his deposition no doubt is a thing much to be regarded, which hath sold himself to be at the Bishops pleasure, whereby there was nothing so apparently false, which he would not dare to affirm, or deny, as he perceived his liking. But Physialogus tells us further out of Gal • n, that the common sense being earnestly employed in some matter, the outward senses per •• i •• not their own object whereby Sommers in like manner might be senseless then, as Physialogus is now. But to waken him a little, I would he would try the pins himself. No doubt his own meditations being far more serious and weighty, then could be in that paltrie boy, he should receive no pain at all: of which if we were once assured by his experience then were we through for this point. For his foaming, Physialogus answers, that parties affected with the Epile •• sie, foam, and that Scoulds do frame: unto which add these two Answerers: That foam out also their own shame. Concerning their violent motions and stirrings, extraordinary strength, & knowledge, you object nothing, but what M. Harsnet hath done before: unto whom I have answered. It had been more be • eeming to have replied to that, then thus to roll over the same stone again. You call for Knapping of iron chains asunder, and then you would believe: as if the Lord must give power to Satan to feed our vain humors. But you remember who promised to believe too, if their curious desires might have been satisfied, whoever scorned the present works they saw, and still desired greater, but obtained not. If there had been chains broken, M. Harsne • would have charged the Smith with confederacy, and would have required they had been so fastened, as the Keeper of Nemgate could have fastened them. And yet suppose he had fastened them▪ it would have been said he had combined, with us. If this could be cleared, then Darrell should have bewitched him, or Sommers himself should be a witch. If this would not serve yet some by argument would maintain, that none can be possessed in these days: nay, that there were never any possessed. So be the matter never so true and impossible to be counterfeited something would ever be excepted, as long as we have to deal with men Lord's over their own tongues, and have no Lord on earth to control them. Considering then I have to meddle with men of this kind, who, so they be saying something, spare not to say anything be it never so false▪ incredible, and absurd▪ it shall be folly in me to spend words about them.

You affirm: The Deponents themselves have since more adu • sedly reformed their oaths and d • posed the contrary. I answer: They have done nothing less. Nay their reexaminations make more for the confirming, then weakening of that they formerly deposed. And this I have made evident in my former answer to the Chapter of Reexaminations: where M. Harsnet objecteth the very same you do here. Whereunto you should have returned a reply, or else for shame never mentioned that, which is already answered. But you may be ashamed (if you be not past all shame) to say▪ that they reexamined deposed thus: namely, that now by their better enlightened judgments, they plainly perceive all those the former supposed supernatural actions or passions, to be but mere counterfeit toys, and plain cosoning practices. O palpable flaunder! What will you stick to affirm, who spare not to publish this for truth? I refer thee good Reader, to my Detection, the place before quoted, where thou shalt see this to be most untrue Whereas, I say, they would have punished the witnesses, if these things had been found counterfeit: you answer, as if they were dismissed upon compassion, being silly poor persons: and yet of about thirty that have testified the things impossible to be counterfeited, upon their corporali oaths, seven of them be preachers.

After you come to the signs of Possessions which you deny to be▪ set down as rules to discern Essentiall Possessions by. They be rules of such possessions as were in the Scriptures and we have shown them to be Essentiall, whatsoever yet you either have, or can prate to the contrary. How foolish and beggarly the words be, you further multiply to this end, I have manifested in your Discourses, I need not repeat them. For the number of signs I stand not strictly upon them. Where they are all▪ I say there is a Possession: I do not say, where there be fewer, or diverse others, there is no Possession. For this is free to the Lord to afflict in what measure it pleaseth him. Neither do I cross myself, as you untruly charge me, making the Scripture signs the only means to discern of Possessions: and then in the 16. & 17. pag. every way equal my experimented signs with any of them. I only in the pages mentioned name some • ewe super natural effects, which in experience I have observed in Domoniakes. But in what place I set them, and how I account of them, is evident in the 37. page, where speaking of experimented signs, I use these words: But the Scripture making no mention of these signs, they are to be regarded accordingly. And • o likewise in the 22. page. In the applicaion of the signs, you impute unto me diverse contrarieties after your lying and slanderous manner. As if I should say: Sometimes they have supernatural strength and knowledge, yet sometimes again, they only seem to have. Sometime Satan hurtes, but hurtes not indeed, &c. Touching the first of these, I having spoken of the supernatural strength and knowledge of the parties controverted, in the conclusion thereof show, that I am not so to be understood, as though I meant that they had supernatural strength and knowledge: but therefore is this ascribed unto them by me, because they seem to have such knowledge and strength. And thus oft in scripture is that attributed to Demoniakes, which was indeed performed by the devil, and done only by them in a seeming show. So the Demoniake, Mark 5. is said to break chains and fetters asunder, whereas not he, but the devil 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 judge them in most extreme and intolerable pains, yet they feel no pains at all. Yet I doubt not but that Satan can jo order the matter, as that the Possessed shall have pain, when he shall see it serve for his purpose, &c. By which I show there is not one uniform order to be expected in these cases: which variety of affliction, these men would draw to inconstancy of opinion. You condemn me also for thinking, The Scripture signs are not recorded only as matter of fact, but partly to help us in discorning of possessions. I ground my reason on the question of our Savior: How long time is it he hath been thus? You answer, Christ respecteth in this question only the first time of that accident. And I reply, you respect in this answer how to trifle off anything ob • ected against you, with foolish words without any substance at all. Doth not our Savior loyne together with the time, the manner and form of his handling? Doth he not inquire as well of the one, as of the other? We must have a question of time without any subject matter, or reference to anything. Miraculous Answerers, which can measure time without any standard laid unto it! You charge me with foisting in words into the text for advantage: but it is your own mouths which run over with the word Essentially, and not any addition of mine. I content myself with the phrase of the holy Ghost, rejecting these terms as needless and superfluous. Though wheresoever the devil is, this speech properly understood (as it is usually in the matter of Possession) there must also his spiritual essence be. That which you think is more then the text, is only added to paraphrase it: and though these words In him, be not in this Scripture, yet are they else where used in like case: you are very hungry, which would leap at so small a morsel.

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 it thither. As for speedy deliver a •• ee of the afflicted, I acknowledge it is no argument of possession: and I thank you for reproving it, though of myself I would be ready to retract anything dissonant from the truth. It is not my desire, any my stubble should be laid upon the foundation, but I am content the fire of God's word should consume it.

I alleging those words of the law, That the Lord will bring upon transgr • ss ••• eu • ry •• ckn • sse, and every plague which is not written in the book of the Law, until they be destroyed. And also that of Saint John: He that shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, to prove that men may now be possessed: you answer, I abuse the Scripture, making Possession sametimes written, sometimes unwritten. But you abuse yourselves, and your Reader to iangle about that, which every child might teach you. For who knows not that some things might be unwritten in the Law, that be very frequent in the Gospel, as indeed Possession is? But to answer my argument out of these places, you deny Essentiall possession to be decrced in God his eternal counsel for a judgment. That Possession is essential, we have sufficiently proved in survey of your Discourses. That it is decreed for a judgment, may appear to any not willfully blind, by those manifold examples of men possessed in the Scriptures: Except those things happened beside the decree of God, or else those possessions were rewards and benefits, not judgments and afflictions It may be your impudent vain will not stick to admit either▪ though none can avouch the first but Atheists, nor the second but only men that are mad. I have shown in your Discourses, how the Lord's judgments are perpetual, though not inflicted every moment, but after such intermission as pleaseth him. Is it not then excellent stuff you bring, That the judgments of this life (for we speak only of them) cannot perpetually be inflicted, but salvation must needs be barred from all in Christ? In like manner, because I say, Possession is but a conditional and temporal judgment, you therefore interre, It is not perpetual. W • ere you play with the word • meaning perpetual, a continued connection, such as nothing may be put between, when as that is usually said to be perpetual, which is common to all ages, though it appear but now and then. You charge me with disputing from May be, to a being in deed. May not I well dispute, It may be, whē you would everywhere maintain It cannot be? How can a being indeed be concluded, before it be manifest the same thing May be? If the heavens therefore fall, we shall not only catch Larks, as you say, but by catching also of you two, we shall catch something that wants brains.

I affirming, There is as great cause of this judgment now, as at any time heretofore: you answer, It is v • t • rly untrue: The manifestation of Christ's Deity, and the confirmation of his glorious Gospel being the main causes of possessiō in Christ's time. My meaning is as appeareth by my words, there is as great cause in respect of sin, as much abounding now as ever. For I do not compare this cause of punishment, with the manifestation of Christ his Deity. And therefore besides the ceasing of the two main causes, you should also have shown that sin was ceased, or else sin to be no cause: which you purpose to do in the pages following. But in the mean season, how do you flourish it, as if I should proudly limit the Lord his times and seasons for inflicting his judgments? I limit no times, but leave it free to the Lord: yet knowing the reward of sin, and the ample kingdom it now hath, according to the manner of all the Prophets, I can do no less then expect his fearful judgments of what kind so ever. But you will prove Possession is no punishment for sin, and that out of the Depth of Divinity. Your reason is, Afflictions of this life, laid upon the Elect, be not properly punishments. It is true▪ but what do you lay to this? possession of Devils is an affliction of this life. We grant this too: yet so, that not only 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 misery or calamity whatsoever, as well as this of Possession, is any punishment for sin? O deep Divinity, and such as hath not been raised from the bottomless pit till now! I deny not but the Lord may impose it upon a man for trial, and for other ends, as he knows best, but may he not also therefore inflict it as a chastisement for sin, or castigatorie punishment? But your assumption containeth more in it, viz. that Possession is an affliction of this life laid upon the elect. This also I confess is true: but it will not advantage you, except ye add, that it is laid only upon the elect, and then shall we have Possession a note of our election, and so a blessed thing to be possessed with devils, which is such divinity, as never Divine, deep or shallow, once dreamed of. It is a shame to rehearse your fooleries. Then you will urge it more strongly, for that our Savior curing the possessed hath given them no watchword of sinning no more. I his watchw •• d was given but in one cure, as I remember Was all other diseases therefore no chastisements for sin? Whether our Savior speak, or whether be silent, you are men that can take occasion for your absurdities upon either. I will not waste paper with rehearsing more of this stuff. Consider with yourselves that lesser affli • tions be punishments for sin, as we speak vulgarly, if your profundity will give us leave: That all death is the stipend of sin, and that Possession is a kind of death. Besides, Offenders are delivered to Satan by the Church, not for reward, but for Chastisement. And if to be in the power of Satan howsoever, be a chastisement, what is it to be in his possession? Is not he the Executioner appointed over the wicked? Hath not he the power of death? How can any one be in his hands, and be not in death? Or how in death, and not in punishment? Our Savior teacheth that Repossession happeneth upon negligence and security, whereby it may be apparent, that the first possession is not for a man's virtues. It it needless to use many prooffes in a plain case, if I had not to deal with men to whom Sunshine is darkness.

The testimonies of the Doctors, which I allege in the Margine, you blame, for that they be not • ully set down. You have examined them in your Discourses, and confess they speak as I report them. I omitted in this place to put down their words, being after to use them in proof of Dispossession by prayer and fasting since miracles ceased. Which position you see includes the former, and to what purpose should I clog the Reader with unnecessary repetition? Nay what should I be burdensome to you? For in that place where they do speak, they speak so plainly, as you could wish their tongues were out, as we shall see in the next dialogue. If you would discredit Wierus, reporting seventy damsels in Rome possessed with spirits in one night, it had been meet you should have done it with some probability: It is not enough, for that it was at Rome. Will you credit nothing done in that kingdom? No marvel, you will not credit things done at home, though never so substantially certain, It is likely, if it had been but a practice of Roman Ex • rcists, they would have dispatched it in less then two years. None of thē was recovered within this time. To have 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 mark of the true Church, as the Papists teach. And so of the thirty children possessed at Amsterdam, the same year they broke down their images, and reformed the Religion, as if the Devil thē more raged, considering his short time there, as he usually doth at his farewell. Thyreus his report may be allowed at least, in things 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 Divines living 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 earnestness defend that, which no man of any reckoning oppagned? This controversy is new sprung up, first hatched, and brought into light by envy, and still nourished by flattery and Ambition, and expertation to get something from his good Lordship. For your argument from Micacles, I hope I have quashed it in your tenth Dialogue. Is it not wonderful that you acknowledging Pass • ssion to be assure natural dis • as •• an l a thing hidden in the secret counsel of G ••• , to execute and effect when and where he will, and therefore may neu r by any man living be avouched for certain, 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 less danger for you to deny it▪ then for me to affirm it. But you are like the prudent topper of trees, that strikes in sunder the very bough he stands on.

For prayer and fasting how it is a means to expel Sa • an, we shall see more, God willing in the next Dialogue, if anything be needful to be added to that already spoken. Whereas I put a difference between the curing of possessions now, & those done by the Apostles for that now it is done by an entreating word▪ then by a base commanding word. you answer as beseemeth your ab • urd fashion, that Miraculous curing of possessions in Christ's time was at n • hand effected by a bare c mmaunding word, but by a supernatural power concurring therewith. O deep Clerks, and men that have diued to the very bottom of Divinity! When we make comparison of means v▪ sed by men, what have we to do with supernatural power? Doth either the entreating word or Commaunding word exclude that? Would any men in their wits deny the work of the instrument, because it is moved by the principal cause? Meat doth not nourish, because the Lord giveth strength, & the staff to bread: Faith is not by hearing, because it is the giftof God. Such are the demonstrations wherewith these Discoursers think they have put all the world to silence: which happily they have done, except it be for laughing. I do nowhere affirm that Possession is a natural disease, and therefore do not go about by Matth. 4. 24. and Luke 8. 21. to prove it, because in those places it is jointly recorded with natural diseases, wherewith you charge me, and by diverse arguments very soberly confute me: but saying that Possession with Devils is in the Gospel oft brought in among other plagues of God, for proof thereof, I do produce the aforesaid Scriptures. Indeed I say, that Possossion is a disease, but add, to wit, supernatural: and a little after call it an unnatural discase: Whereby I make it plain, what manner of disease I account it to be. If you would now have confuted me, you should have bent your force against these things I say, and not against that I nowhere do affirm. But this is with you an usual thing. You add, that I deeming possession to be but a mere natural malady, do directly cross my former speech, where I make it a supernatural malady. And this forsooth is one of your Contradictions. But you must first prove better then you have done yet, that I do not only deem, but say, that Possession is a natural malady, before it be so indeed that I cross mine own speech. If I were given as much to cross my body▪ as you say I am to cross myself in my speech, I were a very fit man to make a Papist, who love of life to cross themselves. To make up your sum, you foist us in a counterfeit, That all supernatural works are miracles, as if faith, hope, and charity, peace of conscience and such like were all miracles: which if it be true, we must needs still have miracles, or else have no Church. The Papists would be glad to hear of these tidings, but nobody else, except such as would reio • ce at your folly. For your second, third, fourth, and fist Dialogues, wherein, you think, you have overthrown Essentiall possession, by that time you have weighed in a just balance, what hath been answered thereunto, you shall perceive to have prevailed as much, as if you had labored to overthrow your Peake hills. You say, You have shown Passession is not inflicted for sin, but I say, you must show it better, before any man of wisdom can believe you. I have branded your absurdity in your Discourses, for that you conclude, a final end of possession from the casting forth of the prince of this world. Here you increase it a thousand fold in making your own singular, foolish, and impious wresting of this Scripture, to contain a matter of no less certainty, then is the express word of God, for an utter end of any the like flood 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 sins reign, there may be the like punishment, which you will not grant in actual Possession, having put a necessary end unto it▪ But you will not be pressed with May be. Much a do you keep with this Sophism, a posse ad esse. Wherfoeuer you meet with may or can in the conclusion, then eftsoons you tell us of this fallacy. • s in your Discourses your skil in Rhetoric, & in discerning of Tropes did fail you: so here it doth in Logic, & in discerning Elenchs. To avouch Poss ssion of d uels to b • e inflicted also for sin is Cu • kolike melody in your ears, but you have sung us a Jack Daws song in limitting it with two only ends, that is, of confirmation of Chaists Deity, and of the Gospel, as I have abundantly proved.

Whereas I affirm the judgment of our senses for the truth of Sommers vexation by Satan, you reply, Our senses could not comprehend such supernatural matters: besides, they might be deluded, and devils can do things in show. For comprehension, seeing you deprive us of all judgment of sense, blame us not if we be something dull in conce • uing this, How that seeing, we do not see: feeling, we do not feel: smelling, we do not smell: and hearing, we do not hear: and that we require you would make it plain unto us. Which when you have once done, and beaten into our heads, I will never trust mine eyes again, though I should see M. Deacon in form of an Angel of light. But if our senses were deluded, & things done in show, that were not in deed, surely it was Satan that deluded us and no counterfeiting in Sommers, as you would fain have it. This is the sum 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 therefore he stretcheth the matter to an higher pitch, That neither any unreasonable man (which is much more) shall be ever able to answer it. So that now we are much beholding to M. Deacon, and M. Walker, that have put all fools and mad men to a perpetual non plus, whose tongues would otherwise continually be tampring.

Concerning the strange and present affliction of the boy of Northwitch, I will say nothing: I never saw him: howsoever you descant on the matter after your lying & pal • ry manner. Yet I think it not amiss to offer to thy view (good Reader) the judgment of the Bishop of Chester in his direction to his parents, and of three other Commissioners for causes Ecclesiaflicall, according with him therein.

Hereunto I will add a few lines, which M. Haruey aforesaid, a man of great learning and godliness, writ in his life time to a friend of his.

We see what the Bishop and Preachers of Chess-shire their judgment is touching this child. What say now the Discoursers concerning him? They after they have for three leaves together scofted at his grievous affliction (for so the Bishop before termeth it) in most profane, childish, and scurrulous manner, do in the end affirm, that he counterfeiteth, and that this would soon appear, 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 have kept you at home. Was this all the comfort the distressed boy and parents received 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 in misery? O merciless men, and void of all pi • ie! It appeareth you have not learned to weep, with them that weep. Well, I can tell you of a couple of such merry or merciless companions as yourselves, that coming of late to one M. tames Charles of Wolroych in Kent, to see his daughter Clemens Charles, who is reputed to be possessed with the devil, & 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, master not long before to this maid, at whose house she began to be afflicted. Now as they were on horseback before M. Hooke his door, and sporting themselves with him about the counterfeiting of this new upstart counterfeit. behold, one of their horses staled blood, 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 carried themselves at M. Charles more soberly, whether they went on other horses. But hereof enough: I will now proceed to your second Dialogue.

A REPLIE TO THE SECOND DIALOGUE.

THe second part of my Doctrine treateth, That those eight before mentioned were verily dispossessed, & that by fasting and prayer, the means appointed by God. For confirmation whereof, I knew no better rule then the example of men dispossessed in holy Scripture, which is the only true and vnsallible touchstone to examine both this, and all other actions by. These Answerers scorn these notes, calling them falsely pretended signs of dispossession from sacred Scripture, and therefore pretermitting them, require my arguments, as if the Signs from Scripture were no arguments at all. It seemeth you have found a vein of better metal then the Scriptures, frō whence your whole book is so full stuffed with your own shining dross, and is so utterly destitute of this purified gold. Yet you cannot beat me from them, but I urge them thus: There were in our Demoniakes the self same signs or notes of dispossession, precedent and subsequent, which we rea • e of in the Scripture Demoniakes, and therefore the same dispossession▪ you answer, There were not the same signs in our demoniakes: and first, because they were mere cosonages, as is confessed freely by the parties themselves upon their own oaths. I reply, the parties we speak of, be eight in number, whereof only Sommers hath made this cursed confession: which was not free and voluntaries, as you untruly affirm, but extorted by Satan, and his instruments, as in my Detection I have made manifest. But what say you to the seven in Lancashire? It may be Sommers hath sworn for thē all: for they as yet, were never examined: yet because we doubt of Somers general oath, I pray you prove unto us, who taught the children to counterfeit? when, and where, and by what means they were taught? what end might induce them to embrace such teaching? whether the parents were privy to it? and what they propounded in practicing such wickedness? Yea, put Sommers too into the roll, & show us what man is able by practice to do the things that either Sommers or they did? And one would think a man of mean agility might quickly perform that, which cofoning young boys and girls could. Shew us, I beseech you, these and such like things, or otherwise if you cannot show thē, & yet tell us of cos • nage, you show us nothing but your long ears, & brazen faces. Secondly, say you, The signs in the Scripture Demoniakes were sensibly perc • iued by the beholders: but these in your pretended Demoniakes were not so, by your own confession. Belike all we that were spectators of our Demoniakes, being (at sundry times) a great multitude, were all stricken with blindness, with deafness, and with a benummednes, and yet we all thought we used our senses, and I am sure, we were no sooner out of the place, but we were able, the Lord be thanked, to see, hear and feel. But you confirm this by mine own confession, which saith, that the spirit could not possibly be felt or seen. I said so, & say so again, that Spirits cannot be felt or seen in their own bare essence, but as they make themselves known unto us by their effects. I angling Sophisters will dispute, That the nose of a man's face cannot be seen, because that which we see is but color or form, and the nose it self is neither of both. Your ears ring it may be with their noise, which hath made you borrow an argument from them. Thirdly, you say, The Signs we report are false: which I would grant you if yourselves had learned to speak truth. We must remember there are above two hundred witnesses hereof living at this day, of which some have deposed the same we report of Sommers. Fourthly, say you, Scripture Signs can argue no Dispossession now, because like effects may arise frō natural causes, and coporall diseases. By this your good help Atheists might overthrow all Possessions and Dispossessions in the scripture. But howsoever you may be friendly to such vile wretches, yet have they no foothold from hence. For neither those effects in those ancient Demoniakes, nor in these of our time jointly & wholly considered can proceed from natural disease. Natural causes can bring forth no supernatural effects, as we have demōstrated these to be in spite of your seventh Dialogue, and what other treaty so ever you oppose against it. Lastly, say you, A dispossession may be without such apparent signs, and therefore your signs precedent and subsequent do not necessarily conclude a dispossession. What? Because it is sometimes without these signs, therefore where these signs are, shall it not be? It is sometime day light without the clear sunshine, therefore when the Sun shines clear shall it not be day? Sometimes the murderer slays a man and is not taken with the manner, therefore if he be taken with the manner, shall he not necessarily be concluded a murderer? These are good rules to make a man impudent in sin: for by them the bold offender shall speed better, then he that doth it minchingly▪ You have spoken then pretily against these signs, but without any sign of truth or wit.

From Scripture signs I descend to some experimented by myself in dealing with Demoniakes, which have reported certain visible shapes, in which the devils seemed to depart from them. But here I am taken up for halting, in that I call it My experience, which was proved in the persons of other. I confess I spake rudely, as all other men do, which call a physician a man of good experience, though he hath not proved all the diseases, he hath dealt with, in his own body. As for visible shapes, you utterly deny, that Spirits could procure thē: yet they did before Pharaoh, and infinite others since, as we have shown by better arguments in my survey of your fourth and fifth Dialogues, then you ever have, or can for the contrary. Some also I show did vomit, or strain to vomit when the devil departed. With this you make good sport, perhaps ticled with remembrance, that you have returned to your own vomit.

Further, I concluding a dispossession, from the present effect of our prayers (whereof the like is not in natural diseases.) You charge me with proper terms, as with certain charming words to conjure the Lord with, for so it pleaseth your profane mouths to speak. And yet I do not use the word proper. Only I say, And God heard our prayer vit • red in such terms▪ that is, made to that effect, as before I have shown in brief. I never dreamed that such▪ Argooses would come after me with so many eyes, to find an hole in my coat for these words more thē in all other men's. But to let words pass, you would disprove the effect of our prayers, for that we could not make the parties the Temples of the holy Ghost, as we had prayed. We challenge no such power, but we might well hope of the mercy of the Lord to sanctify them, which did plainly behold his great good nesse in delivering them from Satan's great rage. Howsoever me thinks you should not be offended with us for putting up this request to God. And what if the Lord doth not always yield present success to the prayers of his servants? Could we not therefore be assured he had now heard us, when we saw the thing performed before our eyes▪ It is true the Devil sometime seemeth to depart, when he doth not but when it is at the requests of God's people▪ when it is after such grievous vexation as was in the Demoniakes in the Gospel, when it is with the health of the parties, and present freedom from all former vexations dy Satan, we need not doubt of it in any sort. For the visible departure of Satan, I answered you even very now.

Besides, I allege for Dispossession, Satan's desire of repossession, which is never but after he is thrown out. You return a double answer, first, that these words, I will return to the house from whence I came, &c. be metaphorical. We remember indeed your monstrous absurdity in making all things whatsoever, spoken of Angels, and devils in the scripture▪ to be Meaphoricall. But as I have shown you, many are not Metaphoricall, so neither is this repecting the sentence of it. The words be part of a similitude, as is plain by the reddition, So shall it be to this wicked generation. The whole standeth thus. As when an unclean spirit goeth forth of a man, passeth through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none: then faith, I will return to my house, &c. entering again in, the last estate of that man is worse thē the first▪ so shall it be to this wicked generatiō. Now to find what past of this sentence is Metaphoricall, we are to know that a similitude is twofold. One which is contracted & shut up in one word, properly called a Metaphor▪ the other displayed & spread open, consisting of all the parts at large, and is termed by the name of the general, a Similitude. For the figurative part in either, the reason is one in both. Therefore as in a contracted similitude, the Metaphor lieth in the word that is borrowed, and not in that from▪ whence it is borrowed, so in the larger similitude, the metaphorical part of it resteth in the Reddition, not in the Proposition. For example▪ Honor nourisheth Arts: the word Nourisheth being borrowed frō meats nourishing the body, is a Metaphor as it is applied to Honor, and Arts, but attributed to his proper terms, it is no Metaphor, as to say thus, Meat nourisheth the body. In like manner (to make a full Similitude of it, in this sort) As meat nourisheth the body, so Honor nourisheth Arts, the Metaphoricall part of the whole, lieth in the latter member, not in the first. So likewise when our Savior saith, As a man delivered from the possession of Satan, and receiving him in again, is in worse case after, then before: So the nation of the Jews, once delivered from the kingdom of Satan, so long as the church of God was amongst them, and coming into his subjection again by refusing Christ, should be in more miserable condition then in any former time: the Metaphoricall sentence of this Similitude, is in the last branch of it, not in the first. Not because there be no Metaphoricall words in the first, as Drie places, house empty, swept, garnished. &c. but for that we now speak of Metaphoricall sentences, not of words. I frame my argument from the Proposition of the Similitude, the sentence whereof is literal and historical, not from the Reddition, whose sense is allegorical. Now then i • a man should reason thus: The Reddition of the Similitude is Metaphoricall, therefore the whole is metaphocall, it is all one as if one should say, The black Moore bath white teeth, therefore he is all white. Which kind of argument every chimney-sweeper would deride: and yet thus you reason from this place, and make it one of your chiefest props to uphold your absurd conclusions with. But unto this place I added another, where our Savior saith to the unclean spirit, Come out of him, and enter no more into him. Was our Saviors prohibition here in vain? was this caution altogether needless and supers • uo us? How chance you pass over this place, withoutanswerīg one word unto it▪ It was too plain: and you two could not agree where the Metaphor should lie, & therefore thought better to slip it over, then by handling it, and bewraying your own absurdities to mar all. The reentrie therefore of Satan is plain by the Scriptures: so that we need not the testimony of any experience: yet I have adjoined in the Doctrine the report of the children dispossessed, and the evidence of many godly then present, which perceived by their agony, and the words of their resistance, what Satan attempted. You trifle over this with greater childishness then appeared in the childrē, though but nine or ten years old, and therefore I disdain to answer it▪ Again for proof of dispossession, I allege thē continuance of the parties health since: you answer: Their former fits were but counterterfeit, a • themselves have confessed. A stale proof of their counterfeiting, and answered before. The seven in Lancashire never confessed any counterfeiting.

Thus having confirmed Dispossession, I remove that usual objection, showing it is now no miracle, for that it is not done by absolute power of Christ in bodily presence, as he sometimes did it when he was here conversant on earth▪ nor by any committed extraordinary power to men but by • asting an • pra • er as the means▪ you answer first: as if I affirmed Christ's absolute power to be cease • d: which I affirm not, but account such affirmation blasphemy▪ He is not now present in body on earth, but worketh by his absolute authority still. Secondly, If Christ's absolute author • ty be th • o • lie • fficient▪ then the work is a • miraculous, as ever. Which is a flat untruth, as I ha • e proved at large in • our tenth Dialogue. For works done by men as instruments are distinguished by the manner of working, and not by the principal cause. you say my Similitude from the Queen, and Lord Chancelor is too absurd: for first, it is a case which never shall be, and so cannot illustrate. I had thought that fictasimilitudo might have had some force. But surely as you are full of new Divinity, so I think you have swallowed Margaritam Philosophiae, you break out on every occasion with such wonderful new axioms of Logic. I intended that Similitude to the manner only of Christ's working, and you would extend it to the like glory of his works now, clean beyond my purpose, and any good probability. For are not Christ's works more glorious, when together with him self his servants work extraordinarily, as they did in the time of miracles, then now, when his servants working is only ordinary. But you will make the same similitude overthrow all miracles now, which I will yield for any, but for yourselves: for you have a privilege to do miracles, as is apparent in your tenth Dialogue.

Hitherto for Dispossession, now for the means: which I affirm with many godly and learned of ancient and our own times, to be fasting and prayer, out of the words of our Savior, This kind go • th not out but by fasting and prayer. Where I calling it a Secret ordinance, oppose it to more evident places: you catch at the word, and come upon me with Secret things belong only to God. He that should deal with you had need, as the Lawyers in writing their instruments, rather have twenty words to spare, then to want one. You would prove, these words did only belong to the Disciples, because the question was made by them, and the answer to them. The Jailor in the 16. of the Acts said to Paul and Silas, What must I do to be saved? They answer him: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, &c. Doth this Scripture now only belong to the Jailor, because this question was made by him, & the answer unto him? Of this kind be infinite other places. For interpretation of these words of Saint Matthew, I have shown you how I conceive of them in your ninth Dialogue. Which exposition varieth somewhat from my former, not because I cannot maintain it against anything you object, but because I seek after truth, and not after vain jangling. If you can show me any better, I will be ready also to change this. In mean season understand how I reason from hence for the perpetual means of Fasting and prayer, which are mentioned by our Savior in this place, either as helps to the extraordinary and miraculous faith of the Apostles, or else of the ordinary. But they are not mentioned as helps to the extraordinary: for miraculous faith in the least quantity, though no more then a grain of mustard seed was able without these helps to expel any devil. Besides they could not be helps to that, which in it self had no being. For the Disciples had utterly lost their miraculous faith, else they had elected the spirit. This also the word Apistia, incrdulity doth note vn to us. And an help is a conjoined force, which conjunction cannot be, where there is nothing to join withal▪ and therefore they be propo unded in this place as helps to the ordinary faith, and so to have a perpetual ordinary use, when like occasion is ministered to us. Again, every Exception is a compendious speech, comprehending in it two propositions, as, Except a man be borne again, he cannot see the kingdom of God▪ wherein is concluded also this, If f a man be borne again he can se the kingdom of God. So, None can come unto me except the Father draw him. Everyone can come unto me, whom my Father draweth. Again, Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved. If these abide in the ship, you can be saved. And so in all other. In like manner, This kind doth not go forth, but by prayer and fasting. This kind doth go forth by prayer and fasting. Now thē let men o • judgment determine whether here be not an evident confirmation of the ordinary course of the Church in dealing after this manner▪ and whether it be not exceeding boldness, our Savior affirming in such sort as is declared▪ That this kind doth go forth by prayer and fasting, for any to open his mouth licenciously against it, and to disgrace it by all opprobrious terms he can. From hence too you may see, the similitude drawn from the Physician saying to his patient, dangerously sick of the Pleurisy, You cannot live, except you bleed, was to good purpose, if you could judge what is to purpose.

It is too tedious to repeat all your untruths, your absurd Non sequiturs, and idle profess. As if I thought it unreasonable for Christ to reprove his Disciples negligence: if Christ's answer were not proper to the Disciples, it was no answer: if he directed not his speech to the Disciples only, he spake to nobody present. This metal craves no touchstonne, it shows it self by the eye what it is: therefore a knock with an hammer is sufficient So, If this answer of Christ propounded an ordinance for all ages to come, there is an ordinance without an appointed subject to vnde • go the same. Indeed this would be strange for Accidents to walk alone without subjects. It is a difficult matter to find who should be the subject of fasting and prayer: so likewise too of the kingdom of God, which our Savior ordaineth to be sought in the first place, and food and raiment in the second, if we could tell who 〈◊〉 do it▪ • esides succeeding ages that could expel this cumbersome • 〈◊〉 sh • uld have more power the eu • r the A •• stles bad, which is false: for the Apostles, their▪saith not failing, could expel any devil. Further, The Apo •• les should • aile in not d • cla • ing this ordinance unto us: concerning which enough hath been sai • e in the ninth Dialogue. I ast • y, it 〈◊〉 establ • shed ordi • ance in this place, because M Darr • ll af •••• th it hath b • ene a • ordinance fr • m the beginning. I answer, I do not refe •• e the original to this place, but only the Confirmation, no otherwise then I make Matrimony an established ordinance by our Savior Christ, he rene • ing the institution of it.

Again▪ I argue the means of fasting and prayer from the example of the Jews Church in our Saviors time: wherein some did cast forth devils▪ and yet were not in the number of our Saviors Disciples, neither did it in his name. You answer, I contrary my sel • e, affirming • l • e where, they did it by the • inger of God: I reply, • ou do not contrary yourself▪ but are ever li • e yourselves, most absur • lie concluding the self same working of the instrument, from the same manner of the principal agent: whereas the chief doer being the same, may and doth work by the instrument diversely. Again, say you by mine • wne concession, this ordinance as then was not established▪ I answer, is was not so plainly, as when our • auiour confirmed it by these words, yet in general it was, and practiced in the Church before. Moreover, say you, Those in our Saviors time besides his Disciples▪ cast out devils by miraculous faith only, for which you allege the seventh of Matth • w I reply, this scripture speaketh only of the e • ection of Satan but showeth not in what manner the same was performed, nor when▪ We do not lean upon any doubtful uncertainties, as you would Rhetorically declare, if ye knew how▪ neither do we take the Lord's holy name in vain • , nor pray with • ut faith▪ as you prate both without wit and conscience. I pass over your fooleries concerning K. Wright, & your six lies at one clap▪ contained in seven lines, as I can prove to your shame. But what speak I of six, when I dare say there be six hundred leasings in • our two volumes? We need not take things of whole sal • men by retale: it • s • n ea • y matter to know b • • our l • ing whose children ve are

That Christ's speech ought not t • be a • propriated to the Disciples, hath be • e declared. Neither • o I say and unsay as • ou falsely charge me. The communication was between our Savior and his Disciples, b • t the ordinance there mentioned is common to all▪ • et Phys • alogus sit these variable answers, as he miscals them, doth tell us a tale of an H • rmit▪ which coming to a Farmers house, and blowing his fingers to warm them, and his • ottage to cool them, was s • nt packing by the Farmer▪ as a diss • mbling c • mpanion. But, to requite you tale, what if the like Hermit had come to some good man's house, and having on his face a fair shining visarce with A. W. written upon it, should upon occasion have his visard shaken off, and under it show another face, signed with I. De. Might not the good man justly abhor this double fa • ed guest, • nd a • monish all honest company to beware of him? I will pard • n you your sport at fast and loose for a shilling, though I might justly make it s • t • aster unto you, then you would unloose again in haste. Put where is the contrariety, I pray you, in making th • se words to • ee spoken to the Disciples, and yet not only to be understood of them? You would collect it after this manner, Because that weakness of faith, and the kind of 〈◊〉 w • re the two in 〈◊〉 wherefore the child was not delivered. And that which is an impediment to any, is also proper to the same party, if we will believe your Metaphysi • kes. For you must needs derive your Assumption f •• m hence. As if the Is • aelites being shut • ut of the land of promise for their v • belief, this impediment should be so proper to them, that n • re but themselves should be excluded for the same: which absurdity is of that nature, that if your stick of fast and loose were • good sound cudgel, you deserve to be well labored about the shoulders with it▪ • ut what should I pursue your several absurdities? To • ache after such scatterers were to fill a cart, rather then ones lap. In brief for your whole dispute, to pr • ue these words only to belong to the Disciples: I • incredulity and • mission of prayer and fasting were impediments only to the nine Disciples, (for Peter, James and John were not of this number) then they can be impediments to nobody else. And so Peter, James & John should cast out any kind of spirit notwithstanding the like incredulity, and omission of • asting and prayer. Yea all other Christians whatsoever should also in like manner. For what should hinder them, if they have no impediment? And what impediment can they have, these two being only proper to the nine Disciples? See now how providently you tie these words to the Disciples only, permitting larger power to all other Christians then to them. The contradiction you here charge me with is lame. It is palpably false, that 1 pag. 49. of the Doctrine au • u • h, there are some kind of spirits, which the Apostles (with all their power) could not possibly expel, but by prayer and fasting. Of this very error I do by sundry reasons from pag. 44. of the Doctrine▪ unto page 48. confute Stapleton and Thyrcus, which notwithstanding you charge upon me, & again stick not to say, that Stapleton, Thyrcus, and myself agree herein, so shameless are you. But specially you make yourselves merry with a contradiction, pag. 111. 112. I answer, The Disciples their not expelling the devil out of the Lunatike, when they were destitute of miraculous faith, letteth not but that by miraculous faith they could expel any devil. These I trust may agree together, without cutting the throat one of another.

That which you talk of helping their weak miraculous faith by fasting and prayer, is already answered. Further, I showing that fasting and prayer were not required as helps in this place to miraculous fa • th, say, that Miraculous faith is of that kind, which is given without means to certain men: whereupon it must needs follow, that there being an Apistia, an utter defect of miraculous faith in these Disciples, it was not to be recovered by fasting and prayer. You answer, It was not begotton without means, because it was given by inspiration of God. By which you make the holy Spirit to be a means: whereas a means is but an instrument: And the holy Ghost together with the other two persons of holy Trinity is always a principal efficient. Thus you confound heaven and earth together, & make nothing in the world to be done without means: neither anything in the world to be more then ordinary: for whatsoever is done by the same usual and never ceasing means, must needs be reputed ordinary. There be few places in the field more replenished in the spring with stinking nettles and weeds, then your whole book with such poison full Hemlockes as these. But with all we have a Discourse of an Habitual & Actual miraculous faith: whereof the habitual is begotten by the Spirit and the word. Seeing therefore these causes cannot always be effectlesse, and that they be ever working in the Church till the end of the world, it cannot be avoided but that Miraculous faith should be in the Church forever: And the rather if we consider, what by your saying miraculous faith is: which you define to be nothing else, but an vnd • uted persuasion, by which we firmly believe, that there is nothing impossible to God: But all the faithful do vndoubtly believe this, and therefore we have still Miraculous faith remaining amongst us, and shall have so long as the Church soiornes on earth: yea the very devils believe this and so having miraculous faith, by your leaden rule shall be workers of true miracles▪ I add, they which were endued with the miraculous faith, had besides the persuasion of God's omnipotency, an undoubted persuasion of the will of God, for the effecting of the wonderful matters, which besides or contrary to nature they attempted for the good of the Church. Now for as much as the knowledge and assurance of the said will of God is not to be had from the word, therefore the written word is not the only ground▪work of miraculous faith, neither doth it come by the hearing thereof, as you affirm. For Actual faith, you will have it a special motion from the spirit of God, raised up extraordinarily, whereby the action of faith shall not proceed from the Habit as from the next cause, as the action of justice cometh from the habit of justice, and so in all other qualities of that kind, but there shall be something in Actual faith extraordinarily more then was in the Habitual. If a man had your sharpness he might quickly go beyond Actius▪ Nauius, that cut the whetstone in pieces with his razor. For the increase of miraculous faith by means, it is but needles to stand vpō it, considering we affirm an utter defect thereof at this time in the disciples, not some covered sparks remaining in them, to be raised into flames by fasting and prayer. For true miraculous faith how little soever, is able without these helps, to atchiue her desined work. But then you will say, yea in effect do say, that the Apostles did superfluously join prayer with it. I answer, no more superfluously, then the Church doth join Sacraments with the word. Faith of itself is sufficient, to apprehend Christ unto salvation, and this faith is begotten by the word: Yet Sacraments have their necessary use, not to enable faith to that, which it could not without them, but to confirm and strengthen it to do her work more cherfully, and with fuller assurance. Prayer is the general instrument to be used in all holy works whatsoever: and therefore the Apostles had warrant for their prayer, & were free from all will-worship therein. I omit here for brevity five of your slanders, and two contradictions wherewith you charge me, myself being not author of any one of the contradictory proposions.

I proving that these words in S. Matthew (this kind goeth not out, &c. belong not peculiarly to the Disciples, say, that if our Savior had rebuked them for not fasting & praying, they might have excused their want of time, you trifle exceedinglye about this: at last you afford us this worthy answer, that considering our Saviors staying in the mount (which for all the circumstances you can allege cannot be long) they had time enough to pray. Antiquum obtinct Crito, you must run your old bias, & impudently flap us in the mouth with time for prayer, whē the question is of time for fasting and prayer. Again, you will have these words, This kind goeth not forth but by fasting and prayer, to be no sever all reason rendered by our Savior, why his Disciples failed in their purpose: whereas we have shown, it is a distinct thing from Miraculous faith, and not necessarily joined with it: and therefore not to concur in making one reason with the same▪ Moreover say I, • f the Apostles in each weakness of this faith, must of necessity have betaken themselves to fasting and prayer, they should have been a whole day about a miracles the exercise of fasting requiring this space, which would have been great hindrance to their speedy travel over the whole earth. You answer, This is Judaism. Belike also it is Judaism for Christians to pray▪ because the Jews did so. But understand, good Reader, that the practice only of such cereremonies as the Lord appointed to be a difference between the Jews, and other people, is Judaism, not the exercise of such duties, as be common to both. That which you doubt what should become of the other part of the day, if the devil should be cast forth before noon, beseemeth men which acknowledge no other service of God, but for their own turns. Is there no duty of thanksgiving? no request for strength to the party dispossessed? no desire that the eye-witnesses might profit by it? you would have Christians serve God, as the dog his master for a bone. The rest is unworthy to be repeated, & so was this, but that I would give the Reader a taste. But what say you, that will not have a fast to continue for a day▪ to A Walker, alias Io. Deacon? who in a book of his called the Footpath to fasting, saith▪ that in the day of our fast, we must be exercised in hearing, applying, and praying for the rem • uing of God his judgments, even from morning to night? Do I (you false tongues) in pag. 48. and 49. of the Doctrine say, that the Apostles should have stirred up their weak faith by fasting and prayer, when I spend those whole pages to prove the contrary▪ O palpable slander, and extreme impudency! Likewise you say, I affirm else where, The Apostles faith was so strong as it needed no means to stir up the same. And I would tell you, you say untruly, but that your score is so full that now you be desperate. Of these two bastardly propositions, conceived and brought forth by yourselves, and not by me, you frame a Contradiction: saying thereupon, that I will turn, • re I burn, yea with the turning of an hand, turn the cat in the pan: and then you tell my pupils, they may be pestilent proud of such a turn-about tutor. Here we may behold, as your honest dealing with me, so your eloquence and modesty.

Besides, I avouching the Apostles strong faith after Pentecost, able for miracles whatsoever, and therefore unlikely the Lord should appoint a peculiar course for them, for so short a time as from his transfiguration till then: you collect from hence the weakness of their faith till Penticost: which I grant you, and more then that, namely, that their miraculous faith was utterly extinct at this time▪ And therefore no use of fasting and prayer for the extraordinary work, but only as it served to the usual manner of the Church in this case. But you will prove the apostles miraculous faith might fail a • ter Pentecost, because their faith failed sometimes in doctrine and 〈◊〉 That we may understand your meaning, what do y • 〈◊〉 by Doctrine? what by judgment? Doctrine usual▪ is public teaching and instruction▪ Judgment private thinking and opinion. Did the Apostles err in public teaching? You say, The Apostles and brethren which were in Iud • a, thought the word of God was not to be preached to the Gentiles. You ground this ou • of these words▪ And when Peter was asc • nded to H • erusalem, they of the circumcision contended against him. Who contended with him? The Apostles, say you, but without any warrant from the text. It seemeth S. Luke having mentioned the Apostles in the first verse, doth of purpose in the second use these general terms, They of the circumcision, to distinguish these contenders with Peter, frō the Apostles. It may be the Apostles did not yet • o clearly understand this mistery, yet it is not likely they were in this ca • e no more but equal to the weak brethren, whereby the • should join in contention with them. Grant we also an error here, it was only in judgment, not in doctrine. And as for Peters not going rightly to the truth of the Gospel, it was not error either in doctrine or judgment, but a timorous dissimulation for the time. John his falling down before an Angel, was error through sudden passion, not proceeding from settled judgment, much less avouched in public teaching. Considering therefore these places prove not that the Apostles erred in doctrine and judgment, and that the Lord doth principal • promise that the Spirit of truth should l • ad them into all truth: and bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had told them, whereupon they be called Skilfull Master-builders, and the Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles. It is admirable you dare so considently avouch such an assertion, upon so little or rather no warrant▪ and of so dangerous consequence. You childishly cavil at my speech, where I say, Their faith did not fail them, after they received the holy Ghost in That f •• nesse: as if I had attributed such a fullness to thē, as is not incident to a creature: and yet I expressly distinguish it by note of restraint That fullness, that is, such a plentiful measure as I had spoken of before. Such an one, as was said of Stephen, • hat he was full of the holy Ghost: and of Paul: and of Elizabeth, when she brake forth into that heavenly salutation of the blessed virgin, that she was filled with the holy ghost. The same is said of Zacha • y when he prophesied, and of the Apostles, that they were filled▪ with the holy ghost. And all these in the Concret▪ but in the Abstract without all limitation to have the fullness • f the Spirit, belongeth only to a divine person, the Father▪ the Son, and the holy Ghost▪ So that whatsoever person hath the simple fullness of the Spirit, the same is God, as well as he who hath the fullness of the Godhead. Of Christ his fullness (to whom the Father hath not given his Spirit by measure) do all the elect receive, not the fullness it self, but grace for grace, that is, graces or gifts of the Spirit heaped upon graces: everyone according to the measure of the gift of Christ, some evē until their cup run over. All which discourse when at last you conclude, that howsoever the Apostles were subject to error, yet they could not pos • iblie err s • long as they heard the voice of Christ▪ and but followed the only directions of the spirit of truth: And that they did never universally err: Moreover, that they did never •• cline from the foundation it self: & lastly, that they w • re recalled from their e • r • urs • what singular thing do you ascribe to the Apostles, that is not common to all believers? Are not the Apostles to be preferred above all other Ministers of the Gospel, and believers since their days? Yet you seem to put them in the very same ra • ke▪ Nay, you say in the top of the same page, that there • e some F • st • noni • s of the Apostles, which only but slipped from human infirmities, and that these ( • ow glorious soever in show) are not the testimony of Jesus, & therefore not the spirit of proph • cie. you speak here very dangerously, that I say no worse.

You argue the defect of the Apostles miraculous • aith, from their praying in working miracles, which rather is an argument for the continuance of it. For if it had • in utterly extin • it had not been to • e obtained by prayer▪ but if you say Prayer declareth the • eaknes of it, and that you mean such weakness, as without prayer ha • not been able to effect the work, it is false 〈◊〉 hath been oft • emembred unto you▪ but if you take weakness for some less measure of cheerfulness, which had need be stirred by invocation of God's holy name, I grant you such a weakness, but this is too weak to strengthen any whit your cause. you charge me falsely in saying, I deny that the apostles faith might & did fail before they were filled with the holy Spirit. I know not how oft I affirm this, which you say is the very point I deny▪ Neither do I say▪ it was but forty days between Christ his transfigi • ation, and Pentecost. I do writtingly let pass many of your lies▪ it is a trouble to repeat them. you see no inconvenience to approper these words, This kind goeth not forth but by fasting & prayer, to the Disciples themselves: whereas if fasting and prayer had been necessary as helps to their weak faith, that could not stand which our Savior hath immediately before affirmed, that so much • aith as a grain of Mustard seed should be able to do the greatest miracles. Howe this distinction of devils is to be understood, we have sufficiently declared in the Doctrine. you make a wonderful partition, when you interpret This kind, only to distinguish diuets from other creatures. The nature of a partition is, that the thing which is parted should be common to all the members. as in this place, creatures going out is the General agreeing to both the Specials, in this sort. Of creatures that go out of man some are devils, and they go not out but by fasting and prayer: some are of other kind, and these of what nature soever go out of a man without fasting and prayer Wha • ▪ is man now become a cage for all creatures▪ Indeed the old Philosophers had wont to say, that Man is a little world: but • ou will give us a sensible understanding o • it, if horses, be ar •• and lions, fowls, and creeping things of all kind, may have an habitation in him. You have been so careful all this while to free man from possession of devils, that in the mean season you have made • im a fo •• est to contain all savage beasts in. I pray you what kind of creature doth lodge in your own breasts? But you say▪ Th • kind cannot be referred to the diu • ls amongst themselves, because they be▪ all of one kind as angels be▪ and also men. Profoundly sure▪ as if kind did only note essence, an • not sometimes quality and condition▪ you brought us even now an example of threwes, The best of this kind is sh •• mish enough whereby you said, wom • n were severed from men by the • fore or kind▪ Is difference of sex difference of Essen •• d So 〈◊〉 speak of doceitfull men, This kind of men is not to be trusted▪ of fl • tterers and ambitious persons This kind of men speak • all to please those in authority▪ of such as have made ship wrack o • a good conscience, This kind of men groweth worse & worse. Now tell me, you Answerers, whether Kind will carry no other sense but that, wherewith you cavil as beseemeth fresh Sophisters. Again, it is admirable, you could find no other similitude to declare the distinction of devils by, but only the whole state of this kingdom of England, comparing our most gracious Sovereign, God's Lieutenant amongst us (I tremble to speak it) to the Prince of darkness, and all the inferior honorable orders of Dukes, Earls, Lord's, Judges, Justices, Knights, Gentlemen, yomen, &c. to the lower sort of devils. Could any men forget themselves so much, as that against all good manners, against honesty, against Christianity, yea, against nature it self, which hath printed in the minds of subjects all loyal and reverent respect towards their most worthy Sovereign, and in the hearts of inferiors all dutiful regard of their honorable Superiors, that you should utter such blasphemy against God's sacred Ministers, and so noble and so flourishing estate as this is? He that privileged this, deserves he should privilege no more. You thought to lade your Exorcist with the envy of so odious a comparison: but all wise men will see, yourselves are the Exorcist, and all the rest of the persons in your books, whom ye make to speak what and how ye please: and therefore whatsoever they offend, they ought to be whipped on your backs. I take not upon me to define of the several orders of devils farther then the sacred word of truth is my guide. You contrariwise, that you might oppose yourselves against me, stick not to bend your forces against the very Scriptures. For you will have nothing now amongst them, but a mere confusion, and a state without all order: notwithstanding our Savior teacheth, that the power of darkness is a kingdom: that there is a Prince of this kingdom called Beelzebub, and inferior degrees called his angels (which whether they be all of them equal, or no without distinction or difference in any respect whatsoever, you should have considered from these words, He taketh unto him seven other spirits worse then himself, & not vainly to have trifled about the word Exusia) that there is a kind of policy of concord maintained amongst them, whereby this kingdom is upholden. These things are plainly taught, and are such as no Christian may gainsay, yet you would overthrow all this, striving for such a blended mingle amongst them, as is utterly void of any the least distinction. But it is a true saying, Fools whilst they labor one evil to shun, into the contrary presently run. Whereas in these words, This kind goeth, not forth but by prayer & fasting, I have observed four things: That there are two kinds of devils: That one is more difficultly expelled then the other: that the child was possessed with one of the worser kind: that thence partly it was wherefore the Disciples cast him not forth: you return, They which want art to analyze the Scriptures, may here learn to bebutcher a text, with Rhetoric ill beseeming unmannerly clownes. But tell me, is there no difference between Analyzing, and making collections from a text? Prate no more of the extraordinary faith of the Disciples, except you can make it good by sound reason they were endued with such kind of faith at that time. Our Savior faith there was an Apistia in them, a thorough defect, whereby only they failed in that extraordinary course they attempted.

But now you will show the impieties, absurdities and dangers which follow of this doctrine. I •• st, it is impiety to a • ouch anything for truth that is not. I acknowledge it is a great impiety: but this doctrine doth not so. Secondly, Lying wonders are the marks of Antichrist. I answer, you lie falsely, when you make the casting forth of Satan by payer and fasting to be a l ying wonder. Thirdly, it is impiety to affirm fasting and prayer (ex operato) may effect such a work. It is impiety indeed, but you may as truly charge me with this affirmation, as you might charge any▪ sound hearted Christian that knows M▪ Deacon, with affirming▪ that he is an honest man. Fourthly, it is impiety to pr • phane prayer and fasting without warrant from the word. We grant also this, but withal join unto it, That it is no less impiety to call that profaning of prayer and fasting, which is warranted by the word, as in this case it is. • astly, it is impiety (say you) to make prayer and fasting which of God are apprinted to be helps unto saith, a sole means without faith for expelling of devils. I subscribe unto it and wish with all my heart, that he which saith so▪ may receive the reward of a deceiver: but if such cogitation was ever far from my breast, that such impudent slanderers might be branded in their forehads with this mark: False accusers of their brethren. I doubt not but you have read these words of the Discoverer▪ (who never speaketh untruly for me, whatsoever he doth against me) M. Darrell confess • th the necessity • f faith in the ordinary means. Your absurdities (for so they are indeed) with the dangers partly foolishly, & partly falsely imagined, what should I vouchsafe to repeat them? I will leave these and such like to the Reader, able now by that which ha •• been said, for all your mask to discern you.

You upbraid me with hiding myself for fear of peril. I have learned by the commandment and example of Christ Jesus himself, his Apostles, and of the Martyrs in all ages, that I may, nay, ought to give place to the rage of man, especially not forsaking in the mean season any duty that concerns me. Yet that you may know I am not clean run away, by that time you have read my Survey and this Reply, tell me whether you have not met with somebody to cope with in the field. You will not allow Christians, if they perceive not their first endeavours to prevail, to betake themselves to further humiliation. whereas this is the practice of the Saints, as to continue their supplications till the Lord have granted, so to increase their exercise, the more difficult they prove the Lord to be. First, David besought the Lord for his child, & as it may seem without fasting: then not obtaining, he joined fasting and watching withal: thirdly, he continued the like till the seventh day. Did he in intend a seven days fa • t in the beginning? Concerning the effi • acie of prayer and fasting, we have the same Coleworts sod again. You talk, as if I made prayer and fasting for dispossession, an unwritten ordinance: whereas I only suppose, that if it were not expressly set down, yet for that it is to be collected out of the general places of Scripture, as where the Lord doth summon us, in the day of our affliction unto weeping and mourning, to baldness and girding with sackcloth: and to call upon him in the time of our ad • ersitie, and such like: and because also by experience we prove it to be effectual, this were sufficient warrant to us for the ordinance of God in this behalf. You might therefore have spared your pains in proving the sufficiency of the word of God, till you met with some Papist, in which number I tkanke the Lord▪ I am not.

For your demands, If dispossession be now ordinary, what be the things ordinary in it. To satisfy you (though you little deserve it) for the medicine, I answer it is fasting and prayer: the operation, is the mighty power and will of God, apprehended instrumentally by our faith: the ministerial hand to apply this medicine, is the assembly of Christians gathered for this purpose▪ The theorie or skill to direct this hand, is the knowledge that they be warranted in so doing from the word of God▪ the means to imprint this skill in those physitions breasts, are the▪ means of knowledge▪ hearing, reading, meditating,: the habit • f this skill is their faith, which is more confirmed by the often practice of the Church in all times. Now then, if you cannot see what is ordinary in this work, bewail your ordinary blind̄sse which will not suffer you to behold the truth. That which followeth is no less foolish then false, which you taike of faiths working ex opere operato: as also that fasting and prayer cure by way of miracle: that fasting and prayer is no supernatural manner of cure: & that if it be supernatural, then it is extraordinary▪ Is it possible for men to dote in this manner? But if the light that is in men be darkness, how great is their 〈◊〉 ?

To the testimonies of ancient & later writers alleged by me, you answer first, that I wrest open their mouths, and make them speak what I please. It is true, they speak what I please, because in this matter I speak nothing but what pleaseth thê▪ but you insinuate that I pervert them. If you could have shown one syllable this way, all the world should have heard of it. Besides, you have already testified in your former Discourses, that they spake, as I report thē. Secondly, you say, they speak nothing at all to my purpose in hand. My purpose in alleging them was to show, first, that men in these days may be dispossessed of devils. Secondly, that fasting & prayer have been used by the most learned and godly in the Church from time to time, since miracles ceased, for expelling of Satan out of the possessed. Now whether they spake to these purposes or no, because yourselves have lost your eysight, let others that can judge of colors say what they think. Your third answer is, that I have not their own examples or practse, but only their bare reports concerning the practice of some others cōuersing among them. This likewise is untrue▪ Tertullian and Cyprian reckon themselves in the number of them which did expel devils. And Chrysostom was present in the congregation, and preached two several days at least, when public prayers were made for expelling of Satan out of persons possessed, brought to that ende into the Church at the commandment of the Deacon. And therefore we have these three men's practice. But admit that none of them had made mention of their own practice, might not their judgment & coun • el • that • eruent prayers a • e to be used for the healing of the p • ss • ssed su •• ic • ? specially seeing diverse of them add, that they have known some that have been healed by the prayers of the godly. Fourthly, say you, they give their advise for the ex • rcise of prayer alone. And this is your fourth l • e, for some of them mention prayer & fasting. Thus much for reply to • our general answers, let us now hear those which be particula • . To Origen you answer, that • e insinuateth •• mply the supposed • fficacie of fasting and prayer, but putteth down no practice of it as of a perpetual ordinance. Mark how false liars saulter in their speech. Did Origen suppose such an efficacy of fasting and prayer & yet not think it was Christ's ordinance, and to be used? Whence could it have efficacy, but from Christ? Or to what purpose was efficacy, if to no use? He therefore that acknowledgeth the lawful efficacy of fasting and prayer, doth also acknowledge, that there is an ordinance of fasting & prayer to such an end. Tertullian you say, Speakes of many pretended deliverances from Satan, but show • th not the manner how they were fried from them. What? doth Tertullian in his Apology of Christianity against the Gentiles, to the whole state of Rome, allege certain counterfeit deliverances from Satan, to countenance Christian religion with? Doth he use such policy in writing to the Governor Scapula, to gain credit to the profession of the Gospel? Surely you are either not well in your wits▪ or which is worse, you have for filthy sucres sake conspired to make but mere fables of the great works of God. But he showeth not, say you, the manner how they were deli • ered▪ Do you stick at this matter? you will not have it by miracle in any sort: •• d therefore, say we, by fasting and prayer. Nay but, will you say, if it were at all, it was by Miracle, and Miracles were ceased before his days. Therefore speak plainly, and tell Tertullian to his face that he lies, that he deluded the world with his pretended deliverances. This is your meaning: and this answer would be short. How Cyprian is to be understood, we shall know (say you) by James Pammelius, who telleth v • , That the Fxorcists office was not then in an • e use of the church, because that office being joined with the gift of Miracles, did continue but for a time. I do not allege Cyprian for the office of Exorcists, but for the casting forth of devils in those days, which he testifieth plainly, saying, And the devils by torments of w • rds are cast out of▪bod es possessed. To this add, if you will Pammelius his testimony, that miracles were then ceased, and so we conclude, That there were casting forth of devils in Cyprians time, & yet not miraculous. But yet for James Pammelius let me tell you thus much▪ whereas you allege his words for the ceasing of Ex • rcists before that time, and also that a little after he should say, That the crafts and juggling sleights of counterfeit Exorcists & conjuring priests, they are long since apparently • uident: yea even to the very eyes of the blind: I marvelled greatly to hear these words of James Pammelius: I knew he affirms the clean contrary, maintaining strongly by testimony of Antiquity that office of Exorcising both of Spirits possessing▪ and in Baptism. I turned my Cybrian, but I could find no such words of his. And therefore either you have met with an edition later then the last, or else you are as notable in belying men's writings as the most shamlesse Papist of them all. To the rest, as Chrysostom, Peter Marty • , Kemnitius, Phil. Melancthon, Beza, Vogellius, Danaeu • , Chassanius, all of them most plainly testifying dispossession, and that by means of fasting and prayer, you answer not one word, but for the length of their footinges, refer us to that which hath been spoken of the former. Indeed these tread in the steps of the former, and of all the godly • earned that went before them & therefore by them we may guess their footings▪ and so likewise by your three wi • les answers to the three former we may easily guess what would be your answer to these, namely all the absurd shifts you could devise to elude their testimonies, as not having in purpose to find out the truth, or to yield to it being found, but by hook and by crook to maintain your own giddy fancies, whatsoever either Scripture, or any other shall say against it. What do I therefore disputing with such companions, which make not truth their end, but some other perverse respect, I know not well, what? Surely Christian Reader, that which I do is for thy good, to lay open unto thee their unconscionable iuglings, least by any coloured pretences thou shouldst be beguiled by them Did not I well to bind thē to their good behavior by a public Instrument in their Discourses▪ Thou seest they have not one word of truth to say against the practice of the Church of God from the Apostles time till now. But you are weary of these authentical witnesses and therefore betake yourselves again to your woēted reasonings, where you may have more scope of words, and more hope to darken the truth.

If, say you, prayer and fasting be an establ • shed ordinance, then it should be always effectual. I answer, you seldom bring an If but there is a lie in the end of it. The prophet complaineth, How long Lord? wilt thou hide thy face forever? Because David obtained not by his suit his Sons life, he might by this rule have bid prayer and fasting adue. Infinite are the instances: it is marvel you could meet with none of them, to cause you to hold in so gross an untruth. But I cry you mercy, you mean effectual in regard of uttermost issue, not of the present time. Now then frame your reason. The ordinance of god is always effectual, prayer & fasting is not always effectual, & so not god his ordinance in this case. I answer. if you take • ffectual for the last issue and such help as is expedient, you say untruly of prayer and fasting: If you mean Effectual for • ensible, imagined and present help, then is it as false, you say of gods ordinance. And this i • you mark it, will su • fice for all you prattle about this matter. So likewise, how Dispossession now is no miracle enough hath been spoken, except you can bring us something of more weight, then hitherto • ou have done. Further ob • erue that here they spare not to deny (though in as covert terms as they can) the witness of Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, • nd of all the rest before alleged, or that can be. Moreover, it this will not serve, for compendiousnesse sake, and more security of their cause, they deny the conclusion. I he argument is, If dispossession by prayer and fasting be miraculou • , then Tertullian, Cyprian, Chysostome, and others wrought miracles, when they expelled devils after this sort: but this is false: and therefore the first. To this you answer • Secondly, if it be true that here tofore or now spirits be expelled by sole prayer and • asting, th • n is the work a mi • acle: which is the contrary a • firmation to the conclusion. When you ta • ke of sole prayer and fasting, you have a secret meaning of your own of sole prayer without faith. Concerning which I tell you again, that if M. Walker & you have such a kind of prayer and such a kind of faith, as usually are separated one from another, you may do well to dispute of such matters between yourselves, for my part I allow no such prayer, neither doth the Church of God.

You argue, that dispossession is not by historical or temporary faith, because God hath appointed it to miracul • us faith: which thing if it had been proved in the beginning, we had done long • ince. Further, you see not wherein i • sti • ying faith should be • ar b • tter then T • mporarie, if this doth • ast out devils, as if to cast out devils out of the bo • ies of men▪ were all in all Besides, if historical • a • th be suff • c • ent, devils might cast out devils. But what if they will not? you a • e never a whit the nearer. Such trumpery sha l have no other answer▪ • or answer to your fourth reason I say, a reprobate may app •• l end the mercies of God the Creator▪ but not of God the Redeemer, And such apprehensi • n for the e • ecting of Satan • ay • ffice.

You slander me▪ when • ou say, that in disp • ss • ssion of Sommers we purposely prayed to teach the b •• olders, that the w • rk • as • ff • cted by the only • ower of him t • whom w • put up ou • pray • r. • u • what is it to say you sclander me? You make no more account to sc • ander me, then to fillip me. Again I do not say, that parties b • w • •• hed have no wa • rant from the Scripture t • fast & pray • , (as is apparan • in the place by you quoted, where I counsel them to this hol • exercise) but only, that there is not such express mention in the word for the curing o • the • , as for parties possessed. And therefore all that is an idle dispute which you purpose for diverse pages together in this matter▪ • ou would • a •• have me a companion in this wicked a •• ertion, which yourselves maintain as is apparent afterwards. But note (good read • ) fo • an egreg • ous blasphemy, that these Answerers make t • e Lor • guilty of the horrible sins committed by the wicked in s •• king to the •• ueil for help in their miseries. For how do they prove it to be an absur • itie to cond • mn • p • oples going to the devil for help? Surely thus, 〈◊〉 • t be a sin to s • eke help of the devil, we shall make the Lord ginit •• of this sin w • th u • whom it can • ot be done. Thou • eest what blasphemy this proposition containeth▪ for it plainly affor death that which before I • ay▪ And the Conclusion, to wit, it is no •• nr e to •• eke • elpe of the devil, is a conclusion of monstrous impiet • e. • o where they would prove, There is no warrant from the worae for prayer and • asting to be used in behalf of parties bewitched, there argument is of this • orte. • f there be no wa • rant • rom the word tha • sole prayer & • asting have any power of themselves ex opere • perato, to r •• o • e • upernaturall • udgem •• ts of God, then there is no wa • rant for parties b • witch • d to use fasting and prayer as h • l • efull in this • ase▪ But the first, say they, is true, & therefore the sec • nd. • ut what do you stick at parties bewitched? You should have inferred generally, there is no warrant nor use o • fasting and prayer at all for anything ex opere o • erato. O men str •• ken with the blindness of Sodo • e •• ich before the d • re, seek the ••• e, and cannot • ind it. Is it your foolishness, th • t you cannot tell what you avouch? Or your shamlesnes, that you • as • e not t • oug • you • names should be dese • uedly odious to all? Or is it, t • at you do so far • e • pise all the learned of this land, that you think there • s not one man able to di • cearne such prod gious falsehood • uch • retched persons would rat • er be c • nfuted with a three cor • ed w • ip, the • by the writings, or words of any. An • if that will not serve, it were • eete such order mig • t be taken with you t • at the Church of God sustain no damge by you.

Whether I have so fondly traversed this question of • oss ss • o • as you sa • , I lea •• it to the g • dly learned to determine, to whose cen • ure I willingl • submit my sel • e bot • in this & in all other m • writings But as for your judgments I pass • ot. First make it appea • e▪ you have eyes in your own heads▪ before • ou take upon you to tell • what is straight, or crooked in • e then • anctifie • our mouths b • c • nfessing, your lies, your sclaunders▪ your blasphemies, before you give sentence of any my doings. In the mean season, if you will needs be bar king, I will find such a bone for you to gnaw on, as shall be fit for your chaps,

Concerning the counsel I gave for fasting and prayer, it was grounded from hence: that in all judgments (of which kind possession is) we are called to humiliation, for which I cite in the margin an induction of diverse examples. To which you answer first, that without particular knowledge of the judgment, prayers could not be made in faith to remove it: which is one o • those Axioms that never fails you, such an one as Ahab's prophets were inspired with, whē they counsel led him to war against Ramoth. Shall not the poor country sick man pray to God for some comfort in his distress, because he doth not know particularly the nature of his disease? Secondly, that the quoted Scriptures only testify the people's • umiliation by pray • r and fasting, so oft as any strange judgment was inflicted, but prove not essential p • ssessions and disposs • ssions by those means. yet they prove the counsel I gave was warrantable, and this I content myself with. It is enough if my poor premises afford me one natural and orderly conclusion at one time. Every man's Cow cannot bring forth colts▪ as yours do.

To conclude, you tell us your great confidence in the cause, which no man needs to doubt of, if he consider your former arrogant bold nesse: nor much marvel at as strange, if he call to mind your incredible blindness. But if your learning and consc • e • ce were more, your confidence would be a great deal less. Then you in • err of the premises, That if there be no possession, nor dispossession now by fasting and prayer, how greatly they have erred that have avouched it, and how much they are to be blamed which cannot endure it should be impugned: But contrariwise say I, if all these things be true, which you deny, as hath been proved by stronger reason, then you possibly withstand, what do • ou deserve which have troubled the Church with new and singular opinions in these points, and in broaching them, have offered to the world to choke them withal other very many gross, fantastical and impious absurdities? and yet you dare entitle your fooleries, The infallible truth, and such, as Glory & praise is to be given to toe Lord for these his lately revealed counsels by you concerning these intricate questions. O intolerable proud ignorance! Have you by late revelation cleared these intricate questions? Indeed your assertions be late▪ for they were never heard of in the Church before: but they were never revealed unto you by the Spirit of truth, but by that lying spirit, whose image doth lively appear almost in every argument you handle. And yet that myself be not only judge, let any man of understanding weigh with equal balance that little that hath been replied, & compare it with yours, & then give sentence: whether any since the time of our peace by our gracious Queen, professing the gospel, hath published any writing of divinity that doth come near these your treatises in number of unsound potions, in misconstructions & wrestings of Scriptures, in absured collections, in impudent rejecting the authority of the ancient, in shameless pretending the names of good authors against their own meanings, in childish stumbling in the first rudiments of Arts, in most frequent lying and slandering, and which is greatest of all, in dangerous and scandalous assertions mixed with some notorious blasphemies: and then it may be you shall carry the bell of all that have written in our times. Great cause there is we should all make bonfires for the publishing of your books, or rather of your published books: but especially M. Bishop, who got the privilege ad imprimendum solum, I believe he beshrewes your fingers for it.

A REPLIE TO THE THIRD DIALOGUE.

YOur Uses are suitable to your doctrine. For what other thing can proceed from a Cockatrices egg, then a serpent? Yet Lycanthropus admires and applauds them: and so perhaps may some do, that be not well in their wits. But they which have received the annointing, that teacheth us concerning all things, will abhor your prodigious dotage, and the more when they consider your uses, which manifest plainly that your errors be not about staws and rushes, such as without danger might be contemned and neglected, but which draw after them most perilous consequences, mightily shaking the very foundation, and chiefest pillars of our faith. You pretend that this your doctrine of final determination of possessions & dispossessions of Spirits and Devils, affordeth first, an holy meditation concerning the undoubted faithfulness and truth of our eternal God, in that he promising four thousand years fully before, to send the seed of a woman, which should bruise the serpents head, hath in his own determined time fulfilled the same, by sending his son. We believe and know it, that not one jot of the Lord's promise hath failed, but doth your doctrine yield any confirmation of it? Nay verily, but doth utterly overthrow it, and make the Lord of truth to have falsified his word. The Lord hath promised by sending his son fully to subdue and vanquish Satan: your doctrine doth teach us, that Christ by his death hath only made an end of possessions and dispossessions of devils, that is, that he hath only delivered Demoniaks such as were actually tormented in their bodies by the Devils. What? Are all the Elect Demoniakes? Have you not taught us. that Possessions were very rare before Christ's time, and that it was very probable there were none at all in Israel, till a little before his coming, and none after the Apostles? Are only then these men delivered by Christ's death? You have quit the Lord indeed well of his promise. He promised the breaking of Satan's head, you make that Christ hath scarce pulled one lock of hair frō his head. He promised deliverance for all his elect, you restrain this deliverance only to m enactually possessed with devils. He promised us a gift • as i • were of an hundredth thousand talents: you make him to have satisfied his promise in bestowīg upon us an hundred pence. Do men satisfy bonds in such manner▪ Doth a Creditor▪ to whom is owing a thousand pound, hold himself contented in receiving two or three shillinges. • ye upon your comfort: you are miserable comforters: But this determination▪ you say, of Satan's Actual possession may confirm faith and hope for the utter subversion of the whole kingdom of darkness. I answer, you lie falsely, if your doctrine be true. For hope can expect no more then faith doth presently embrace, but by your teaching, faith doth not embrace a full vanguishing of Satan's kingdom by Christ's death▪ but only an end of Actual possessions (which neither was accomplished, as hath been shown) and therefore hope cannot look for any further subversion of Satan's kingdom then is already. Now let the godly judge what lieth hiden in your doctrine, whether they be things to be tolerated, and cooly dealt in or no: or rather of such nature, that if you will not reclaim them, all lovers of the truth ought to spit in your faces in detestation of your errors. So likewise when you speak of God his all sufficiency, of Christ's triumph, and of the Devils captivity, who so ever trusts to your doctrine in these points, shall perceive he leans upon a staff of reed, which when he shall stand in need of it will brea • e a sunder▪ and run through his body, as may sufficiently be seen by this little, that I have now remembered, as also by that hath been more fully declared, in Survey of your Sixt Dialogue. your uses then are wretched, and therefore I leave them.

The proper use that can be made of your doctrine is, that Christians should now show their wisdom in practicing that rule our Savior Christ hath taught them, namely this, beware of salse prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Thou hast seen in this book of theirs, good Reader, these men professing themselves, The Lord his unworthiest on earth: when they begin their disputations, to begin the same with prayer, recreating themselves with singing of psalms: to wish the Reverend brethren if they have faulted either in matter or mannerto confute them and spare not, withal desiring the blessing of God to light on their hearts for their labor that way: to have used many words of goodly pretence, of great obedience to the magistrate, of great care of their brethren's good, of great sincerity in calling everything to the trial of the Scripture, and many such other fair shows. On the other side thou may st see by▪ this Survey and Reply what abundance of vile and gross errors is packed up in these their treatises, What little conscience they make of god his truth▪ Of lying & slandering, how exceedingly they have trifled in ech several point, and now by these uses how all tendes to this, to descredit God his truth in fulfilling his promise, to impeach his sufficiency for van quishing of fatan, to restrain Christ's triumph to a thing of nothing, to limit Satan's captivity with loosing of a skonse, and such like: which things being thus, now it will shortly and easily more appear, whither these men be false prophets, or no▪ Fo • if they shall recant themselves of their errors, and as they have given public scandal to the Church, in laboring to draw men after their fancies, so again in submission to the truth, disclame all such opinio n dissonant from the sacred word, throwing the first s • one at themselves, to the end all other may beware of them, then they shall be manif ested to have shipped but of infirmi • ie, and to be such indeed, as they would seem. Otherwise if they will still maintain & defend them, then thou • eest good reader, these men's sheep's clothing, and how for thy sake I have pulled it over their ears, whe • by thou ma • est behold them to be inwardly ravening woules: if they be to be judged wolves, not only which rent the menbers of our bodies in sunder, but also & much more they, which by infecting men with pestiferous opinions, deliver thē to saran to be torn in pieces both bodies and souls▪ In this case it will behooue the Christian Magistrate, both Civil & Ecclesiastical▪ to take order, that such cruel deucuring beasts may be driven from Christ's fold: & that they would consider, that they make not dissensions & scandals contrary to the doctrine we have learned, which stand for the truth, but they which oppugn the truth. It is the rebel that makes civil war: the faithful subjects wepons are not against the peace but for the peace, neither is it the dog barkīg in the night, that disquiets the shepherds, but the Wolves approaching: the kepers stirring is to be commended, & the thieves assaulting he is to be defended. This use then the Magistrate is to make of your doctrine: generally all the Christians of this land, are to take it as a watchword to avoid you as Scorpions, that they may know you to be men▪ which have made your bellies your god, & to glory in your shame: which have a form of godliness & have denied the power of it, whose mouths speak proud things, having the persons of men in admiration for advantage sake. These manner of men are fortold should come in these last days, & our Church doth already feel it by lamentable experience. If thou shalt make this use, Christian reader of their book it shall not be altogether unprofitable for thee. For It must needs be that heresies should come, that they which are approved amongst us may be known. The Lord therefore strengthen us▪so many as be of this number, to stand for his truth, and give, us wise dome to discern those which would craftily undermine it, that all such wicked workers being defeated, we may constantly walk in the purity of it, till the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the father and the holy Spirit be all honor and praise forever.

Amen.

Here followeth my answer to the Contradictions they charge me with.

The Discoursers charging me with a shameful company of Contradictions, no less then fifty, I first framed an answer to them, with full purpose to publish it, & therein have made it plain there is not a contradiction. But this my Treatise proving much larger then I intended, & the answer to them being of little or no use, save only to clear myself of this slander, and to discover their filthiness, which needeth not, I thought good rather to suppress, then publish it: yet so as I will give thee, good Reader, a taste thereof, and of their upright dealing herein, assuring, thee of my credit, that even such be the rest of their contradictions.

Darell, say they, in his Doctrine pag. 54. saith, that prayer and fasting being used aright, will certainly prosper either to the removing or sanctifying of the judgment. But pag. 56. he saith, their is no assurance to prevail.

I answer. There is no assurance to prevail, that is, we cannot be sure the party shall be delivered, the means being used, for so are my words. Had then I said pag. 54. fasting will certainly prosper to the removing of the judgment, and no more, I had contradicted that I say, pag, 59 but adding or sanctifying, a child may see here is no contradiction. Such a contradiction is this: Certainly the Discoursers will ether be ashamed of their contradictions, or their sin is the greater: Assuredly they will not be ashamed of their contradictions. And this: The sun is either under a cloud, or set. It is not under a cloud.

In his Detection 163. Darrell saith, fire hath powe • r to burn, & in the same pag. hath no power to burn.

All that we read Detection 163. is that Somers hand being in the fire was not burnt. Would ever any man, these two excepted, hence collect a contradiction? How many thousands in this land have said the same, and among them not a few that be learned, & yet I dare say neither learned, nor unlearned ever feared they spake contraries. Shadrach, Meshech, & Abednego being in the fire were not burned, and yet they that cast them into the fire were burnt. I trust you will not say here is a contradiction. But confess both these to be true. Fire naturally burneth, but restrained by God the over-ruler o nature, it doth not burn. Secondly, you should first have shown where I say, Fire hath power to burn, before you told us that I speak contraries.

In his Dotrine pag. 2. he saith, that it suiteth altogether with Satan's • ature to be filthy or wicked in speech. But Detection 175. he saith, that it sutethe as well with his nature to use good and holy speeches.

My words Detection 175. be, Holy words have been uttered by Satan. Tel me is this a false proposition? Or yet this: unclean and blasphemous speeches suit excellently with the nature of the unclean spirit. If both these be true, which none will deny, with what truth do you say that I speak contraries, whereof the one must needs be false? These men sure had forgot when they doted of this contradiction, that the devil is as well by nature subtle, (and in his subtlety ready to transform him self into Angel of light) as unclean and wicked. Of this stamp they have 18 contradictions more.

In his Doctrine 47. He saith the disciples by virtue of their so large a commission could cast out a devil of any kind. But pag. 50. the Lunatike child was possessed with one of the worst kind of spirits, and that thence it came the disciples could not cast him out.

To make this contradiction they have detracted part of my words in either proposition. In the former these, if their faith failed not: which words, or words to the same effect in the aforesaid pag. 47. & the two pages precedent I use no less then twelve times. In the latter proposition where I say, thence partly it came, they detract this word partly: whereby I intimate the Disciples faith did at that time fail them, when they could not cast the devil out of the lunatike child, so that their incredulity was one let, which oft else where I express. And this you well knew, as appeareth by your next contradiction, the twelft I mean. What meant you then thus to separate and rent asunder those words which of purpose I had coupled together? And by detracting that which in either of the propositions i • so material, and in the one I inculcate so often, to pretend a contradiction where you knew none was? Who hath bewitched you to use such curled devises, for the compassing of your contradictions? A cursed pretence must this needs be, seeing it cannot be done in ignorance: For you cannot be ignorant hereof, that the words detracted by you I used, spcially those so oft iterated, and that in those pages from whence ye have the sa de contradictory proposition: considering also that to make another contradiction you aleag the very same words you omit here, & that frō the same page, as witnesseth the contradiction here following. Neither can you be ignorant of this, that these words being used and added by me, I am not contrary to myself, yea hence it is that you did omit them. It must needs therefore be that you knowing here was no contradiction, have against that knowledge of yours (by this devise of detracting these words) made yet a fair show to the world of a contradiction. Here is no contrariety except these be propositions contradictory: The Disciples could cast out a devil of any kind, if their faith failed not: The Disciples their faith failing could not cast the devil out.

In his Doctrine 47. he saith the Apostles faith failed not: But pag. 48 he saith it failed at this time when Christ spake to them and in this very work.

These words, the Apostles saith failed not, you could omit, when such omission serveth for your purpose, as appears by the former contradiction. But now when they must stand you in some stead, they are not to seek. He wanteth the use of one of his senses, that smelleth not here your stinking breath. My words be these. They were able to cast out all devils, if their faith failed not: which imply not that the Apostles faith never failed them, as you would have it, for otherwise here is no contradiction, but rather the contrary, that their faith did at sometimes fail them. Again, though these words The Apostles faith failed not, with the former are mine, yet thus rent and separated from their fellows, I may truly say they are not mine. In your Discourses you say, if the skies fall we shall have larks, By your wise rule you there affirm, that the skies do fall & in the same book pag. 24. where you have these words: If Angels be uncreated then are they eternal: you affirm, that Angels be uncreated: yet pag. 28. you say Angels be created. These propositions be contradictory, and the former of them absurd, and so here is a contradiction (forsooth) and an absurdity, when indeed there is neither. Here is paltrie and childish stuff. If I would walk but in this one crooked step of yours, how easily could I make a book of your contradictions, and another of your absurdities. But suppose I had said no more then you produce. viz. The Apostles faith sailed not frō thence ye could not infer a contradiction, except I had spoken of the same time mentioned in the latter contradictory proposition. Their, faith might not fall them at one time, and yet sails them at another time.

In Doctrine 52 Abraham's prayer is made a sole means of conception and procreation of chidren: But pag. 60 another means is found appointed of God for that purpose, or else it would prove a miracle.

As before by detracting so here by adding you abuse both me, and the Reader: The words I use be these Who will deny but that as the sin of Abimelech (in taking Sarah, Abraham's wife unto him) had shut up every womb of the house of Abimelech, so the pray • r of Abraham was the mean whereby they were opened. & that judgment taken away? Do I here make Abraham's prayer a sole means of procreation? That I mean & affirm is, that by Abraham's prayer as a means Abimelech his wife & women servants, were made able to conceive, which before they could not, not excluding, but including the knowledge and seed of man: which no man in his right mind would hence gather, this couple excepted.

In his Doctrine pag. 2. he saith, it is absurd to affirm that the devil▪ being without a man) can dispose of the whole or any parte of man's body: but Detection, page 11. he saith that thediuel (in all probability) did use Sommers his tongue, notwithstanding he was essentiallie and sensiblic playing boe peep under the couerleed.

The former proposition is not mine, I say every part, you save, any part. And so by altering a word you have made a contradiction where none is: except there be no other part of Sommers his body, besides his tongue.

And thus to thee Reader, but for brevity, I would make it evident, that of the discoursers fifty contradictions, being examined one by one, there is not so much as one to be found. The greater is their siune and shame who charged me with so many.

And here we are to obseruefirst, that of these contradictions there are above 20. wherein there is no contradiction at all, taking them at the hucksters hand, even as themselves have quoted them. And namely these: contradiction 4. 6. 7. 8. 13. 14. 17. 18. 19. 21. 23. 24. 26. 28. 31. 35. 38. 36. 37. 41, & 45

Secondly, to mark the several devises or sleights whereby they make semblance of contradictions when there are indeed none if you take the words as they be set down in my treatises. I his semblance they make.

1 By forging that I never affirmed (but often the contrary) as in contradiction 1. 9. 17. 19. 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 35, & 46.

2 By omitting or detracting some word or words material, as in contradiction 3, 11, 12, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, & 40

3 By adding, and thus have they done in contradiction 15. 43. & 47.

4 By altering, as appeareth by contradiction 6, 17, 27, 29, 49

5 To this said end also, when both their contradictory propositions are in the same page, and sometimes in the very same sentence, they run notwithstanding for the one of them to a page far off, or happelie to another book: Hereby (I mean by alleging two distinct pages of mine, somewhat also asunder) pretending, that what I say n one place, forgetting forsooth myself, I gaynsay in another. As appeareth by contradiction 1. 3▪ 5. 22▪ 26. 36. 42. & 47.

Thus have these men so accustomed and taught themselves to falsife my writings in whole or in part: by forging, detracting, adding, & altering, as they have alleged very little of mine truly: & no marce: because truly alleged they would not make for their purpose Yet notwithstanding they have by these cursed means compassed their contradictions, I doubt not but that they please themselves greatly, and glory in them, specially in the great number of them, and do think therein they have shown not a little wit. But I will tell you, a very fool that will give liberty to himself to add, detract and alter but here & there a letter, may easily make, a thousand contradictions, where none are: much more he that will do thus by words & sometimes by sentences, as you have done.

Whether now you have pretermited anything material, and by such omitting, and taking what parte of my writings might make most for your purpose, even purposely maimed my writings, which you deny and I affirm, judge thou indissirently between us good reader. And whether you will acknowledge and redress the offered wrong, whereof I complain, and which I trust to be a wrong I have made manifest by this my Reply, unto all men, & to your own consciences, as you pretend you will, nay, seem to abhor not to do it, if once the wrong shall be made to appear, saying: God forbid that we should not do it very willingly: in time both thou and I shall know. And thus much for answer to their supposed contradictions. For brevity sake I omit my reply to the Absurdities wherewith you charge me, and your slanders contained in them.

Here not unfitly may I charge you with the contradictions & Absurdities I find in your writings: and if it fall out so that yourselves be found faulty in that, whereof unjustly you accuse another, then thereby learn henceforward to pluck rather the beam out of your own eyes, then busy yourselves so much about less then a mote in your brothers eye.

In their Answer page 55 and page 179 of their Discourses, they say, that the manifestation of Christ his deity, and declaration of his glorious & spell, were the main ends of poss • ssion: and a little after, that the possession of devils were especially for these two ends: thereby in sinuating that there were some other ends or end. Yet page 67 of the same book they say, that these were the two only ends of this vonderfull judgment.

2 In their Dial. dis. page 58 they say, angels do evermore work after an invisible, insensible, and spiritual manner. And the next leaf, page 60 they say, that angels in all their ambassages they do other manifest themselves by seeing and hearing, or assist us estsoon • s by some other sensible means. And they bring Augustine flatly affirming that the angels do outwardly help us by certain visible apparitions or sights, which they propose and offer before our eyes.

3 In their Discourses pa. 42 they say, the mind it self, and it only is that wherein motion consisteth: and the body is but the minds organon or instrument, having naturally in it self no motion at all, or no further motion at the most, then for those only actions wherein the said mind (whose organon it is) employeth the same. But in pag. 74 of the same book they affirm, that the body it self hath, and may accomplish or effect corporal operations and motions by it self alone, without any the direction, moderation, guidance, or 〈◊〉 of the soul.

4 In their Discourses pag. 116 they say, the devil did so bewitch and charm the Serpent, as that (through his crafty suggestion) she was very well able to propound such a divination or sooths •… ing, as d • d presently circumvent or deceive Fuah. And in the same book page 1 9 they say, that a reasonable speech cannot possibly be framed or understood of any but of a mind having understanding and reason.

5 In their Answer pa 50 they say. These eight d • moniakes might be possessed, though the devil was not essentially inherent in any one of their bodies: But page 43 of the same book they say, The p • ssession of devils whatsoever is ceased long since.

6 In their Discourses 173 they say. The Apostles might authētically avouch for insallible truth whatsoever they preached. But in their. Answer page 126 128 129 130 they say, that the apostles sometime failed in doctrine. And a little after: all these were their err • urs in doctrine and judgment. And again. It was expedient for the apostles to err in some things, that is, some points of doctrine. And this they understand after the holy Ghost fell upon them, as is plain by the aforesaid pages.

7 In their Answer pag. 7, they say, that wonders and miracles are flatly confounded: but in their Dialogicall discourses 209, they say, the devil may work wonders, but can effect no miracles. And pag, 310, thus, A thing effected by essential means, howsoever it may be a wonder, yet no miracle in any respect.

8 In your Discourses pag. 352. for your parts you assure me, that you are very far from all suspicion of a precompacted confederacy between Sommers and me. Yet in page 42. of your Answer you say, why should we wonder at all, that two • unning compan •• ns (Meaning Sonnners and myself) consed • rate together before should conclude such a course between themselves, as the one (by the help of the other) should progms • icate strange and mered • ble events.

9 In pag. 39. of their Discourses, they tell us, There is not any one sound Divine that d • th • n t understand Possession as they do, and none as I fondly imagine and yet in the • pistle to the Reader prefixed before that book, that which they deliver concerning possession and d sposs ssion of d • uels, they call, th • t private opinion: and in page 195 of their Answer, The Lord his lately revealed counsels.

I am to crave thy patience good Reader, specially the authors, for the late coming forth of this book: for I confess it hath lain in my hands almost this half year.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉