A SURVEY OF CERTAIN DIALOGICAL DISCOURSES: WRITTEN BY JOHN DEACON, AND JOHN WALKER, concerning the doctrine of Possession and Dispossession of Devils.  
WHEREIN IS MANIFESTED THE PALPABLE IGNORANCE AND DANGEROUS errors of the Discoursers, and what according to proportion of God his truth, every christian is to hold in these points.  
Published by john Darrell minister of the gospel.  Titus 1.10.11. There are many disobedient and vain talkers, and deceivers of minds, teaching things, which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake, whose mouths must be stopped. 
IMPRINTED 1602.   

TO THE READER, WITH ANSWER to the Discoursers two epistles.  
It grieves me (christian reader) I assure thee, still perforce to be thus troublesome not only to myself, but also to thee. It must needs be enough, and more then enough for thee, to have perused so many simple treatises already, all harping on one string. And as for myself, how can I after so great vexation by the B. of London, so long imprisonment, such public producement into open courts, & lastly my pains to clear the truth from M. harsnet's slanders, but like a tired & weather beaten bird, wish sun choir corner to rest myself in, & to dry my feathers in the warm sun? But it is not my lot, I think, to breathe me, no not a little: For behold two new champions, that have been buckling on their harness these two or three years, with a proud swelling volume like a Spanish Armada, challenge me afresh to a new encounter. Wherein yet this comforts me, that this new on set 〈◊〉 an open declaration to the world, that in these men's judgements at the least, the Bishop with his home forces hath been to weak. Neither this only, but even the B. himself by entertaining this fresh aid, doth as it were plainly confess, his victory to be as yet unperfect. Otherwise it were idle either for them to offer, or him to embrace a needles supply, if they perceived not their former platforms by that poor battery, which my contenned writings have made, to be tottering & falling. Blessed be God which though he suffer his truth to be shrewdly pressed, yet not to be altogether oppressed, to be shrewdly thrust at, yet not utterly cast down: to be laden indeed with heavy burdens, yet to grow under them like a prevailing palm. Great i● the power I see of a just cause, how simple so ever her tail be. But what? shall the matter now be put out of all doubt? Must it needs in these Dialogues be convinced by Logic, and persuaded by Rhetoric, that all this brute of Possession and Dispossession is but a mere deceit? O foolish and unadvised men, which think to overthrow that by fond Sophistical words, which by sad words and deeds hath not hitherto been vanquished. No doubt men of judgement will herein deem the Bishop to have failed in a great point of circumspection, in committing the brunt & execution of a battle to these the weakest and cowardliest companies he hath. For if himself could not be satisfied to have wounded the cause to his power, with the sword of his authority, but that he must needs raze the memory of it with consuming fire, he should not for performance thereof have sent us this Ignis fatuus, as every one may easily discern this to be.  
I pray thee Christian Reader, have patience with me. I will spare thy pains, and mine own, as much as I can. My purpose is not to man out an other galliass like this Discoursers gallant, but to set upon it with my poor fisher boat, & yet I hope by God his assistance to make her lay her top sail in the broth. Neither think thou, I endeavour hereby a defence more for myself, then for thee. I could have contemned their frivelous reproaches, had it not been thou wert greatly endangered by the manifold gross errors wherewith they would poison thee. And therefore intending thy good, more than mine own credit, I will take a brief view of their dialogical Discourses, before I come to them which properly concern me.  
These Discourses be fronted with a double epistle, one to the Right H. the L. Keeper, and chief judges of the land, to which we will answer anon: the other to the Reader: wherein omitting their earnest care to find out the truth in this doctrine, proceeding even to dissension between thee two, otherwise sworn brethren in matters of fact, first we have a large rehearsal of sundry reasons for the edition of this treatise, both wherefore it hath been hitherto suppressed, and also for what causes now at last it is published. For suppresing the regard of your own imperfections were not to be misliked, if you had not repent of this humility so soon. But I can hardly believe you conceived so meanly of your own faculty, as to fear the censure of any for scholastical form, your whole discourse is so analytical, & your Phisiologus & Othodoxus such ripe & pregnant concluders, besides your continual upbraiding me with my hodge-podge and us all which have dealt in this cause with our intricate riddles. Neither can I think you distrust your eloquence as you pretend, wherein you brave it so everywhere. Whether it be Ciceronian varnish or no, I cannot tell, my skill is not great. In my poor judgement, to give you your right, the sentences are well stuffed with good rattling words, able to still the babes crying, & replenished eftsoons with many Timely epithets, sweetly buzzing in every corner like a swarm of flies. I grant you that there be many busy controllers of other men's labours. But why should you fear a quip for a point of learning, which have enured your faces not to blush at greater matters? No doubt your compassion and care of me was great: lest by publishing this work, you should increase my affliction, such is the charitable regard you carry towards me in this you have published, in every page imbracinge me no less tenderly than the Ape her young ones. Lastly you hoped, Authority might have caused silence: for which purpose you remember the obedience of the prophet to Amaziah his command, after he had done his message though not so fully as he would, yet sufficiently: such is your great skile, or at least your fidelity in reasoning, that by your rule, the hungry man must patiently fast, because he doth so which hath his belly full. Withal you would feign charge our stirring in this cause, with want of respect to her majesties Princely prerogative, but in answer to your Queres this imputation shall appear to be no less absurd, then malicious, and yourselves rather pernicious Sycophants, than we in the smallest allegiance undutiful. And thus have we these worthy reasons for suppressing as forcible to this end, as if one should suppress water with a ●iue.  
Now what great motives thrusted forward the publishing? forsooth, for that some Ma●● contents undermined the authority of the high commis●ion: when as only the bad dealing of some in the commission was justly reproved, the Commission itself not once either touched, or meant. But here your eyes dazzled, and could not discern the wood for the trees: the Person, and the office with you must be all one, you know no difference between M●ses chair, and a pharisaical life. But Busie say you must needs have a band: Well M. Deacon, and M. Walker, make much of this band● y●u that might have re●ted quietly in forgetfulness, if you take not good heed, may hau● mo●e use of ●t ere long yourselves, than you would. These are great motives, y●a this case is so weighty, that we must have a just halfa score reason's more to satisfy the world ●or sending this treatise abroad. Should we run over these severally? It were but mispendinge the time, to hunt the wild goose cha●e with you. Therefore to gloane here and there one. Your second and third allegations, to cross the opinion of a Necessary perpetuity of Miracles, is to be frighted with your own shadows, and as behemoth men of you● quality to flare, where no fear is, who urgeth Perpetuity of Miracles? Have I any where affirmed it? Nay, have not I earnestly opposed myself against it? Either prove me untrue if you can, or confess yourselves t● be past all shame, who will needs father that upon me. I never affirmed, but the contrary, which yourselves also testify contradiction 15. Your forth reason hath some more substance in it, than all the rest. You feared my credit would be too great. To free you from this fear: I have learned by God his goodness not to glory in this, or the like things, and to my poor ability I have always enform●d my auditors accordingly●. And surely you, if there be any glory in such like actions, and yourselves sound members of that body you make show of, would rather have rejoiced in the fellowship of it, then have grieved through envy, & disgraced the same by all the means you can, Fastly you doubted least the conscience of some might be trouble● with scruple, if justifying faith be the instrument of such works, sith all endued with that faith bring not the like to pass. But I pray your great learning tell me, by what faith obtain w●e daily bread? Was Lazarus to doubt of his faith b cause he was not sat sfied with the trummes of the Rich man's tabl●? Hath the Lord bound himself to bestow all corporal blessings upon ea●h of the faithful, and in the same measure also? Or are you only ignorant in this A B C, which every common Christian knows? I will not dispute this matter further with you for shame. Whereas you say eightly, we have been convinced for gross malefactors, I should marvel at your impudence, but that I know with what mett●l your foreheads besteeled. If we were convicted for such as you say, what was the sentence of our condemnation? what was the punishment? what be came of the execution? As for our deprivation from the ministry, was this an inflicted pain for teaching to counterfeit, wherewith M. More was never charged, and yet deprived as well as I? or rather the Bb. only pleasure, who lest they should seem to make all this stir for nothing, & not finding such cause as they desired, chose rather by laying this upon us to maintain the reputation of their own wisdom, then to punish us for the defers of such a crine. If they had found our fact worthy thus to be he censured, I hope they would not be so partial, as to suffer all the rest of the practisers, in the same rank of guiltiness with us, either not to be called to account at all, or being examined to be dismissed again without any correction. I would desire you (if any honest request may prevail with men of your stamp,) that if you must n●edes be lying, you would lie with more probability lest all the world cry shame of you. Tenthly your Scorpion's sting is ever wagging, in objecting disobedience to the Magistrate, and printing without privilege: you shall receive answer in your Queres where you urge this matter more importunately. And thus much for the wind that moved the Aspen tree, of whose leaves it seems, for all your reasons yet alleged, your tongues are made.  
The rest of the Epistle is spent in preventing lavish tongues, against whom you fence both your Persons, and your Cause. For your Persons, and first for your learning, It is joy that men of your skill can be so humble. Howsoever you in modesty deem yourselves Minimi Apostolorum, the least of ten thousand: yet for my part when I consider the multitude of good Authors prefixed before your Dialogues, and scattered sentences in them, & how little you are beholding to any of them in the chiefest points you handle, having through the quickness of your own conceit found out that, which they never once dreamt of.  
When I say, I consider these things, I am forced to yield this praise unto you: that you are profound Rh●psodistes, & men expert in Tablatine, which by the help of an Index are able in some few years to marshal a troup of sentences and Authors to some terrible show. Besides who can but commend, as your multiplicity of reading, so your faithfulness in alleging, which would not use the phrase of Dare manus, but cite your Author M. Tullius Cicero for it? which phrase only, hath put Cicero in the list of Authors to make up the number: and the like diligence hath afforded us the names of divers others. Nay me thinks I see in you the skill of prudent Captains, which to terrify their enemies, can make an handful of men show like a great multitude, some one seeming two, yea sometimes three. This stratagem hath placed Aristotle in A, & Philosophus for the self same author in the letter P. So johannes Darrell being a great learned man, first makes one in the rank of I, & the Narration of Darrell an other in the troops of N. But Gregorius in G keeps a terrible styrr: for first he is part down simply Gregorius, then again Gregorius Magnus, and the third time Gregorius 1. Rom. and yet all these are but one. You must needs overcome, which are so full of policy, not inferior to Cyrus, that by certain Idols made for the nonce, and men of straw, took Croesus at Sardis. Fear not therefore ye learned Discoursers, howsoever the ignorant may lightly pass over your Table, painted margin, & many autho●ityes without due regard, yet the judicial Reader (able to distinguish between a counterfeit, & a grounded knowledge,) will give you such commendation as you deserve.  
For the carriage of your lives precedent & present, we have a whole page presumed with many slonenly terms. And herein you lay about you mightily, bragging yourselves like butcher's mastiffs with their collars of iron pikes, & daring any to set upon you. If your horns peep out of the bushes whether you are fled for covert, you may thank yourselves which have eaten away the leaves. Yet I will pass by you, as though I saw you not: not for any fear of your urchins skin, wherewith you think you are sufficiently armed, but for that I think it better to pass by you in silence, then to utter that which you deserve to hear, and to lay you open in your colours. I will only demand this of you, how you durst dedicated your treatise to the Right Honourable Lord Keeper, to the Lord Chief justice of England, and other the chief judges of the land, by this means to occasion them to inquire of your person? I say no more, let this suffice for answer of that Epistle of yours to their Honours, as I promised you. Yet I must needs tell you, that where you say, we sport ourselves in branding our brethren, with the odious name of Formalists, you say untruly. We accounted them Formalists, which form and fanshion themselves like unto this world: & not they which are crucified unto the world, and the world unto them, albeit in some things they descent from us in opinion. And instead of branding such with this or any other odious name: if they be of the ancient, we call and reverence them as fathers: if others, we term and love them as brethren. From these and the cause they speak of, it being holy and good, if this couple be with D●mas quite fallen, to the embracing of this pre●ent w●rld, & become Apostates, revolters and backsliders, whereof they say they look every hour to hear, let them know that this Apostasy of theirs, is not the least of their sins, nor easiest repent of. But to let all this pass●, concerning your cause, if you will as you say, be content that it be tried by the fire of God his truth, you shall d●e well. For your form by Dialogue and other order in following the cause it is as your pleasure, I know none ready to except against it. If you bring truth, it shall be acceptable in what form so ever.  
For your Queres, whether her Majesty hath authority to establish in her dominions an order for printing with privilege, belike you were at leisure when you moved this Quere to spend words in a need less question, never denied, or doubted of. All Princes have authority in their several kingdoms to constitute some conv●nient order in this behalf, and this care is both holy and good. How can the whole lump possibly not be soured, if every man might thrust in his leavens at his pleasure? But than you demand further, whether every one be not strictly bound to observe this order? I answer every one is strictly bound to observe the meaning of the law, which is, to suppress falsehood & wickedness: But when such officers shall come in place to be set over this charge (as no Prince to the world can always avoid it) which instead of suppressing error & sin, will according to their ow●e deceived humours suppress truth and virtue: here the meaning of the law is to be looked in to, & practised, and the letter is not precisely to be stood vp●n, which is abused by unworthy persons to a wrong purpose. Is not the end of all laws the good of the common wealth? Should one, ●r some few men's abused authority spoil all the subjects, yea & the Prince herself of the clear understanding of any necessary profit? If nothing may come to the governors ears, but what it privileged by the high Priests, the soldiers may say Christ was stol●n away by his disciples, or what they will else. Therefore when m●n fa●le in care to examine before printing, it is requisite such books should be examined after printing, that the meaning of th● law may be observed, and the people with ●rrour not seduced. You see in the c●urts there is a writ of error, and the honourable judges suffer willingly a sentence wrung from them by any deceit, upon better proceeding to be reversed. Yea there is an appeal to the high court of Chancery, though law hath established a determination in t●e several Courts. Neither doth her Majesty herself (of her gracious go●dn●ss●) disdain to receive the supplications of her poor subjects, tha● think themselves injured elsewhere. And yet strict course of law doth not allow such proceed, but rather inhibiteth it: commanding us to stand to the definitive sentence of the judges. Now what else is a truth published in print without priu●ledge, but a supplication to the Prince and people for repousse of her 
That is truths  injuries? nay rather for redress of their ow●e injuries, which are endangered by allowance of trumpery to abandon truth, & so ●o cast themselves into those manifold mischiefs which proceed from error. Good men and wise and most obedient to their governors, have in all ages, and do at this day in all places of Christendom, practise according to this rule, or else God his truth w●uld be in pitiful case. Are not you then egregious Sycophants which do vehemently con●emn all the godly upon so foolish a conceit? Are not such as you a flattering poison to Princes, which would transform them from gracious governors, into hateful Tyrants? It were not amiss that such skilful workm●n, which can m●ke a Bull for Phalaris, should ta●t of their cunning first themself. What Tyrant when he hath done one injury, will not suffer him so much a to grieve for his wrong? would you have truth wounded, & not allow her to complain? Indeed Tereus when he had deflowered ●hylome●a, cut out her tongue: and this earnestness of these Discoursers in this behalf give shrewd suspicion, there is something in the wind, where fore it should be behooveful for them, that not only men's hands might be kept from printing, but also the mouths of all that know them might be surely lo●ked up, & that themselves might keep the keys.  
The remainder of your Epistle shows the order of the Discourse. Your Alphabetical table, with the Several names of the Several Author's, and their Several authorities we have touched before. Yet further take this with you, that as jehu caused the heads of the 70. so●nes of Ahab to be laid on two heaps in the gates of jezrehel, so these names you produce be no bands of friends, ready to stand in your def●nce: but Turrian h ape to show how many you have expressly slain in this cause, infinite others being also wounded in them. Your arguments will save me a labour: for I shall need no other collection of your absurdities, just s● many in gr●sse, (your first dialogue excepted) as your arguments be. Your Analisis is handsomely chequered one part within an other, like a motley cloak h g. For first you say, the devil his power, is either a power of possession or obsession: when possession & Obsession in such men's writings as treat these points a●e used for all one. Then Possession in your discourses you make only to be outward, and yet Mental Possession must grow from it, as figs upon thorns. If you say you m●an● possession vulgarly, neither is that true, for vulgarly it is applied to that vexation which appeareth in the torture of the body: But your Mental affliction is seuèrally & solely by itself a Possession. The next division is either Real, or Actual. What? have we now a Real possession, wherein is no action? This indeed is a gentle possession. Again, Corporal possession is either by assuming true bodies, or transforming: whereby good angels shalb● made possessors & torments of men, as shall be showed more in due place. You have presented us here therefore with an analytical babble, instead of a table: labouring to stop our mouths with one gallimawfry served up in divers dishes, as if any two words under a  of gemmall lines were sufficem for such a purpose. For your Speakers in the Dialogues Philologus tattles prettily & answers his name well, but Physiologus might better be termed Phisialogus, for he is but a Dun●e in Philosophy, & your Orthodoxus is as rightly so called, as john Deacon was sometimes A. Walker. Your Tables in the end might well have been spared. I think he which hath once read your treatise, will not be greatly desirous to find out a●y point to read it again. And thus at last we have an end of the Epistle, to be commended chiefly in t●is, that not only by the length it withhouldeth sometime the Reader from the treatise itself, but also by the fondness might justly bring him in distaste with the rest, and so cause him to spare his pains from proceeding any futth●r, which perha●p● he shall perceive to be no small benefit.  
I. D.   

A SURVEY OF THE FIRST DIALOGUE  
Though concerning those great works of God in freeing divers from vexation of devils, at the hearty prayers of his people, wherein M. More and myself have joined with them, these Dyallogues contain stuff little to the purpose, considering the question is of matter of fact, whether any be freed from such vexation, or no, and not of the manner, how such vexation is wrought, which is hard for any mortal understanding exactly to define: yet because Errors in doctrine be exceeding dangerous, & of admirable increase, every seed bringing forth a thousand: I have thought it not amiss to admonish thee Good Reader, in as brief manner as I can, what trumpery lieth hid in each several dialogue: and the rather for that they were intended to disgrace that fact: which indeed they do as much as the rage of man usually doth the mighty operations of God: that is, they more increase the glory of it. For your first dialogue therefore, It is true that there are devils that Devils are no bare motions or affections, but natures spiritual, substantial, and of personal being: which be called Angels: 
pag. 1.  yet you speak dangerously when you say there be Essential Devils as appeareth by their creation, as if by creation they had been ma●e such: you disclaim this wicked opinion afterwards I confess, and reason against it by some arguments: but every one reads not all: & it beehoves us, lest occasion of error be ministered to any, to use words of soundness in every place.  
Your Mahgnitton for Nottingham, 
M. Deacon you now what I mean●  Eirtwab for Bawtrie & Eibrad for Da●bie: seems to be some peddlers french, such as upright men once practised when they ranged the country with their queans: It is small credit for you to be expert in this language.  
For the substance of that which followeth in proving Spirits to be subsisting natures: It is generally to be allowed and embraced. And it had been to be wished, you had kept the same moderation in the rest that you could have been content to have trodden in the steps of other godly & learned, as in this you have in some sort done: rather than have run new courses: both hurtful to others & pernicious to yourselves.   

A Survey of the Second Dialogue.  
The second Dialogue driveth to three cheifheads. 
pag, 40  The first treating of possession generally, & making it common to all afflicting (by the devil) tormenting, & tempting both inwardly and outwardly, whereas the affliction of the mind is only called the trouble of conscience, & Satan his tempting of man, temptation or suggestion, but ne●ther of them termed by the name of possession any where. This word is proper to them, whose bodies be extraordinarily racked or rend by Satan, as the boy was Mark. 9, 20.  

De Idolorun vanitate. in Mat 8: 28 C●em Harmon, lib 3: c●p 37 pag. 70: in M●r 1, 23 De  ibus creation's p●rte 1. lib. 4. cap 10: in Mat 8 28 A●●elog 1. pag 606 pag, 126.  Besides you distinguish between possession and obsession, contrary to the custom of all which deal in this argument. Cipryan saith, Devils adjured by us, are compelled to go out of the bodies obsess d. And Dionisyus Carthus●anus, In one obsessed there was a legion of devils Chemnicus treating of this argument, useth ordinarily the word obs ssi●n. And in like manner do other both of ancient and latter time. Yea I da●e be bold to say that where once in this argument writers use the words p●ss●ssio, poss●ssus, possidere, they have obsessio, obsessus, and obsidere ten times. So that where you make obsession c●mmon to all men in the world in the language of the learned, All men should be Demoniacs▪ which though your palate be so gross that you cannot discern how vnsauo●i it is, yet others can feel with their fingers to be most absurd. But this was your ignorance, 
The epistle to the Reader pag 1  which either knew not, or did not well consider what Obsession meaneth, as we shall show more afterwards. And therefore as beseemeth men of private opinion, you bring us significations forged in your own mint.  
After you tell us, that possession is nowhere any real inherency: Indeed we know, Possession signifies to ha●e a thing in one's power by any means howsoever, as a man may possess an horse, although he be not in his belly. Neither do they which argue a r●all inh rencie reason from the word Possession, as you fond and childishly imagine, but from other most plain terms, of necessity enforcing somuch, as shallbe declared in convenient place. If now Possession import no real inherency, 
pag. 34, 40.  than you commit a double notable folly first that you blame the English Translator for thrusting this word into the text, whereby the whole world hath been universalli possessed, as you say, with ma●y grosse errors concerning the Devil his supposed possession in man. I am glad our English translation is received vniuer●allye through the whole world: for otherwise, I hope the whole world would not universally be deceived by it But I pray you Sirs, (if your wits be your own) if Possession carry no meaning of inherency, what hurt could the English translator do, to the breeding of this opinion in any, by using this word in the text? your fingers itched until you were scratching the English translation: 
pag. 34, 3 Answer pag. 24.  How else should we have known you to be great linguists? Secondly, if possession signify no substantial in being, to what end is your tedious discourse that the word Possession is no where found in thy argument, either in the old Scripture or in the new. you would make us believe in your first dialogue against me, it might probably be disputed, that till a little before the coming of Christ there were no essential poss●ssions at all i● Isra●ll. In Christ his time than it should seem that there were essential possessions. Thus unawares you destroy that you build. But to let this go. Would you then find possession there describe, where was no use of any such thing? Surely you were sick of a superfluity of Hebrew, and except you had Timely vented it in this place, you had certainly died for it.  
Where you say, No true Interpreter did ever translate Daemonizomenos, men essentially possessed with devils inherently in them, 
pag: 38  Indeed men usually are loath in translation to render so many words for one. But neither say you is it so understood of the most judicial & soundest divines. You might have done well to have produced the authorities of some, and to have spared your former idle and unsavoury flourish, with your greek and hebrew. Calvin saith, 
in Luc: 4: 33, in Math: 12: 43  When Demoniacs do speak the devils speak in them, & by them. Again, It followeth that the devil hath an habitation in men, because he is thence driven out of the son of God. Beza termeth the dispossession of devils, A casting of them out of the bodies of men. Now than whether these words, 
in Mat 12: 26.  To have dyvells speak in them and by them, the devil to have an habitation in men, to have devils cast out of the bodies of men, sound rather a real inherency, or the contrary, Let any indifferent man judge. Peter Martyr speaks thus: Christ & the Apostles commanded the devils, that they should go out of the bodies possessed. Piscator affirmeth, 
Loc: come: class, 1: cap. 10. sect. 30: math, 8, 28, mar 9,  that god sometime permitteth unclean spirits to dwell in man. He saith further: The misery of the child is set forth, by the inhabiting of the devil. And Zanchius proves this inherency by sundry reasons. It were long to allege all: and we shall have more occasion afterwards. Therefore either show us the words of the most judicial Divines, by which it may either expressly appear, or at least be sound gathered, that there is no substantial inbeing of devils in Demoniacs, or else be ashamed to face out an untruth thus impudently in the open view of the world.  
The second general point disputeth, whether it be necessary Satan should first enter essentially into the possessed man's mind, 
pag, 42  before he can possibly bring the body into his slavish subjection: which point you determine negatively, making to yourself an adversary of straw to fight withal, I never having affirmed any such thing. For my part I know the body may most violently be tormented by Satan, when the mind the mean while uphelden by the grace of god, doth not yield unto him. yet you proceed in this needless business, and frame an objection out of these words, And after the sopp Satan entered into him. 
john 13: 27,  This entrance say you is only an effectual thrusting of the intended treason into judas his heart. 
de consens● Evang: lib 3: cap. 3  I will not dispute whether this entrance was substantial, or no: (Augustine is of opinion it was not, but only a further degree of efficacy moving judas, whereto I consent) for this makes little to the matter in hand. judas is no where termed a Demoniac, of whom only our question is, neither in truth may be counted one. For judas betrayed not his master ignorantly, or vp●n mere compulsion but through the voluntary mailice of his own heart inflamed by the power of Satan. 
acts 5●3,  So concerning Ananias, of whom it is said, the div●l had filled his heart, Though this entrance were not real, yet this cause is never the worse▪ considering the question is not, how the devil doth enter by suggestion, but by possession, in which state Ananias was not. Therefore cease to encumber your Reader with unnecessary talk, and either bring something to purpose, or hold your peace. Next comes Physialogus in, and reasons very properly, but that he beats the anvil, not once striking the hot iron. The conclusion is, The body may be in slavish subjection to Satan, 
pag: 43  before the mind itself be subdued: which if it be understood of violent subjection, I have already granted: but Phisialogus will needs also have it true in voluntary subjection, as if there could be a willing obedience without the command of the will. But what is his reason? The body may be tempted externally, before the mind be subdued. And this point because we doubted not of it, is proved by two whole pages. But what? Is all temptation before the mind be subdued a slavish subjection? here Phisialogus is altogether mute: he spent all his goats wool in making his other web, and hath not left himself one lock, to work up this piece with.  

pag: 45  The third general point is, whether the devil doth essentially enter into any man's mind: which question I might well let pass, as little pertaining to this cause of ours. We only have witnessed Gods great goodness towards certain his servants in delivering them from the grievous rage of sathan: but whether this vexation proceeded from his real dwelling in the mind, or no, we have not taken upon us to discuss. It was enough for us to behold the flame, and the Lord in mercy quenching it, although we be not privy from what furnace it arose. Yet because you have propounded it, and that it is worthy consideration, (so we contain ourselves within the bounds of christian sobriety,) I will say something in regard both of the Reader, and myself, desirous rather to learn, and to find out the truth, then presuming to conclude any thing peremptorily: for what need we, saith Augustine define any such thing with danger, 
Aug. enchi: ad Laurent: cap. 59  whereof we may be ignorant without blame? I answer therefore, the devil doth not enter essentially into the mind, that reasonable faculty of the soul, which comprehendeth the understanding and will. The Lord only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men. 
1 kings 8: 39  Neither yet do I affirm that spirits do really enter into the soul's inferior powers and operations, as Quickening, Sense, Affection: only this I say, that after an hidden and vn●erchable manner they do apply and join themselves to these her inferior works. Gennad●us c●nsentinge with Bernard Augustine & Beda that the devil doth not essentially enter into the mind, yet affirmeth that by an effectual application, 
Bernard. Ser. 5. super Can Aug, de SPARKE, et Anima cap. 27 Beda in Act: 5, 3, Gennad. in definite: ecclesie dogmat. Bernard Ser: 5, Super cantic. Aug: de divinat: doemon● cap, 5,  and a violent oppression he is nearly united unto it. What else is this application, & near union unto the mind, but the joining of himself to the fantasy and affections, the next neighbours to the understanding & will? So Bernard requireth the intercourse of some instrument, whereby created Spirits might be applied to the mind, that is, the Imagynations & affections, which be instrumental, and by which they do exceedingly work upon the highest powers in our nature.  
And Augustine is most plain avouching, that Devils persuade by marvelous and invisible means, by their subtlety piercing into the bodies of men, not at all perceiving them, & mingling themselves with their cogitations by certain imaginary sights, whether they be waking, or sleeping. But this is principally confirmed by the scriptures themselves, for that angels making their apparitions in sleep, perform their operations immediately. The outward senses at such time are all bound, so that by them they cannot convey any thing from without, to the powers within. Example we have in joseph, 
Math, 1, 20.  to whom an angel appeared in sleep, bidding him not fear to take Mary his wife. And as this Angel did speak in joseph, 
Zach: 1, 9 & 2, 3, Zach: 1, 8  so it might seem the Angel which talked with Zachary, did speak in Zachary, as the natural force of the word doth signify. And the Angel, saith he, which talked in me.  
This vision made to Zachary was in the night, for so he saith, I saw by night. And this manner of speech, to see by night, 
Dan. 7.13 Dan, 7, 1,  or to see night visions, is all one to see a dream. For so Daniel speaketh, I saw, saith he, by night visions, when as before he had declared it was by dream, Daniel saw a dream, and there were visions in his head, he lying upon his bed. Therefore Augustine had good reason to dispute of this place of Zachary as he did, considering Night apparitions, the force of the original word, and the greek interpreters so care fully expressing it, 
pag, 59,  notwithstanding whatsoever these men say to the contrary. Besides, experience also giveth no small light to this matter. It must needs be that wicked & horrible cogitations, such as make a man even to tremble for fear, should either arise fr●m the corruption of the flesh, or from some outward cause, or else from the real presence of some wicked spirit moving the fantasy. But the flesh is no author of such horror, which by all means it escheweth affording rather all flattering and enticing allurements to persuade the mind by: neither is there any outward cause or occasion, whereby the thoughts should be so grievously assaulted, as is apparent in divers so afflicted: It remaineth than they be stirred up by the personal presence only of him, which if he be manfully withstood by faith will fly away. 
Iam: 5  This I take to be the truth in this point: warranted both from the scriptures, and from consent of chiefest interpreters. If these things now be so, though you should demonstrate the devil doth not enter really into the mind, yet if he be so near the fantasy & other inferior parts, he will be found to be within a mile of him whom he doth possess, and you to have powered forth a great company of big words to small purpose.  
If I desired to show, how when you have a good cause you handle it full ill, I might fitly do it here. That there is no mental possession, you prove thus, The devils, as also man's mind, are created of god for other more special ends. 
pag. 46, 47,  As if things destinated to some principal end, may not in mean season be used to other inferior purposes. 
Mat, 25: 34 Rom. 8: 36,  The elect are appointed to be heirs of the kingdom, yet in this world they be as the sheep of the slaughter. Indeed if you had showed that god never purposed any such thing, you had said somewhat. Again say you, The real entrance into the spirits of men, doth obscure the peculiar office of the holy ghost, which is (repl●tiuely) to inhabit in our hearts for ever. If any should affirm such entrance he would not be so mad as to say, that spirits were there repletiuly. Seeing then there is no equality of their inbeing, (supposing such a thing) it doth no more obscure his office, than the light of a candle the clear sunshine. Further you say, whereas there be three manners only of inbeeing essentially, none of all these doth agree to the inbeing of wicked spirits. I answer, (to admit this inherency for this present dispute) they be there definitively. Then, say you, they are only there in conceit. what say you? are devils in the Aer but only in conceit? are they any other ways there then definitively? This conceit of yours makes devils but a mere fancy. I thought you had meant good forth in your first dialogue: but such counterbuffs as this would make one believe, you are privately of other judgement, whatsoever there you pretend. Notwithstanding these and other such like reasons of yours, (which for brevity I omit) the devil may possess the soul of man, as well as his body. Such acute disputers are ye. It is no marvel though you maintain your bad cause as you do, when you manage a good no better.   

A Survey of the third Dialogue.  
The third Dialogue handles two conclusions: The first, That spirits & devils do not enter essentially into the possessed man's body. The second, That they have no true natural bodies for this purpose culiar to themselves: importing a necessity of natural bodies for a real entrance: A thing most absurd.  
That spirits do enter really into men's bodies, we have partly heard, but it is more evident by that which followeth. 
Math. 1, 20, Heb. 1, 14.  They present themselves to the fantasy without mediation of any outward sense: not by way of influence, themselves being absent, as the sune abiding in the heavens pierceth with his beams to the earth: by personal presence therefore, which is required in their actions: For which cause they be Angels, that is, R●porters, sent forth to the ministery, as the example of Gabriel sent to Daniel & Mary declare.  
Again they which dealt with familiar spirits, are termed by the 70. Interpreters Engastrimythi, that is, such as speak after an extraordinary manner out of their bellies: not as if they had a drum by their sides, but from a real being of a spirit in them. For so it is said concerning them, 
in Levi●: 19, 21 Engastrumeni, Aristoph. in vespis,  If a man or a woman have a spirit of divination, or southsayinge in them etc. Of whom Theodoret speaketh thus: Some by certain devils being swollen in th' it bellies deceived many of the simple, as foretelling (forsooth) things to come, which the Grecians term Bowel-prophets, f●r that the devil seemed to speak from with in them. Unto whom Aristophanes alludeth. But imitating (saith he) the soothsaying & wisdom of Euricles, by entering into other men's bellies, I hau● poured forth many pretty comical things. Upon which words the Scholiast writeth thus. This Euricles was a Belly-speaker, 
mar: 5: 5, 13, & 9, 22,  & was reported at Athens to have prophesied many true things by a devil that was within him. Afterwards this manner of spirit was called Python, as Th. Beza witnesseth upon the 16. Chapter of the Acts ve. 16. where you may see more to this purpose. Besides, it is plain, that they which be possessed, are carried by an inward mover, & not by a thing forcing them outwardly. All outward violence, as if one be drawn, or thrust forward, hath a resistance in the body. but men possessed cut themselves with stones, cast themselves into the fire, & into the water, and run to their own destruction most greedeely, as also the swine did having received these guests: whereupon the Primitive Church fitly called them Energumeni, as having the very real fountain of this operation within them. But chiefly it is to be remembered, that in the Gospel the devil is said to 
(a) Luk. 11, 26:  enter into men: to be 
(b) act: 19 16:  in them, to 
c Mat, 12, 45:  dwell in them, and when these men (whom we call Demoniacs) were healed, to 
(d) Math: 12 43, & 17, 2● Lu●e 4, 5 4●  come or go out of them, to be 
(e) Math, 7 22 & 10, 1 8  cast or thrown out, and to be 
(f) Mark 3 23.  driven out 
(g) Mark ● 25  Go out of him (saith Christ) and enter no more into him: Then the spirit came out. Again 
h) mar. 1, 25:  Hold thy peace, & come out ●f him: then the Devil came out of him. And again, 
i ● mar. 5: 13, math. 8, 31:  Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit Hereupon the devils besought jesus, saying: If thou cast us out, suffer us etc. Then the unclean spirit went out, & e●●r●d in to the swine. 
pag, 3 4 38.  Where therefore the Discoursers say, there be no proper w●rds or terms in any of the places ●f Scripture concerning Demoniacs expressing an essential possession, the falsehood thereof is so manifest, that it may be seen with one's forehead. For what words or terms can possibly be more proper, direct, & plain, to express the inherency of spirits in Demoniacs then these used by the holy ghost? 
Mat. 27, 52:  It is written that after Christ's resurrection many dead bodies arose, & came out of the graves, and appeared unto many. Is it not hereby manifest, that those dead bodies had been buried, and laid in graves? In the 10. of Luke we read that the Samaritane having carried the man that was rob between jerusalem and jericho to an Inn, took out (viz. of his purse) two pence and gave them to the host, saying that whatsoever he should spend more, he would recompense. I would know now of M. Deacon and M. Walker, whether these two pence were not once in the Samaritans purse. And whether if they were never in his purse, it is possible he should take them out of his purse. In like sort S. Mark speaking of Mary Magdalen, saith, that out of her jesus cast seven devils. And Luke that out of her went seven devils. I demand now whether seven devils were not first in her, before they went out of her. 
Mark. 16.9: Luke, 8.2  This egress of the spirit (so often mentioned in the gospel) doth evidently prove the ingress and inherency of the spirit. Yet the holy ghost resteth not here, but doth in as plain & express words affirm the ingr●sse, and the inherency of the spirit, as the egress thereof. The ingress is set down in these words, enter no more into him. Also he cometh with seven worse than himself, and they enter in. 
mark. 9.25, mat. 12.45. Luk 4: 33: & 8.27.  The inherency in the words following, and they dwell there. Likewise in that Demoniacs are said, to have a diu●ll. But chiefly and most plainly this appeareth by the 19 of the Acts where Luke mentioning the wounding of the seven sons of Sceva, saith, And the man in whom the evil spirit was, ran on them, & overcame them. These things must now needs be Real, except we will have a man to enter into an house, which comes no nearer than the door: to dwell and be in it, and yet never come under the roof: and to be thrown out, though he was never within. If one should charge you M. Deacon that you were thrown out of Ireland, how would you defend yourself? were it not sufficient to show you were never in Ir●lan●▪ So if the devil could truly affirm he was never in any man's b●●ie, he would think he had no sn all advanttage against the Gospel, that proves him so oft to be thrown out. I beseech you let him be his own Proctor, and do not you help him with a shift, whereby he might inveigle any.  
As this inherency of spirits in Demoniacs is cleared by the holy scriptures, so hath the same in all ages been received for a truth, 
Tertul in Apol, cap. 3● CyPria●: de Idol. vanitate Aug. lib. de civit. Dei 8, in f●ne ca●itis 26, A●g de d ●● doem: cap. 5. in Ma●, 5: 7: Th Aqui. 2 2 q. 165. art. 2 arg. 4,  as appeareth by the testimonies of learned writers here following. Tertullian saith, It is not hard for the devils to pierce into our bodies. Again. We expel devils out of men, as is known to many. These spirits saith Cyprian, disquiet our sleep, and secretly also creeping into the bodies terrify the mind, distort the members, etc. Augustine affirmeth, that the devils are tormented, and cast out of the bodies of men possessed. Again, that through their subtlety they can pierce into the bodies of men when they perceive them not. Theophilact writeth thus: The Lord doth ask him his name, not that he himself but others should learn the multitude of devils that were in him. Men know not saith Aquinas, 
Io com●cl● 4: cap 9, ●ect 16,  when the devil speaketh in them, what they speak. Peter Martyr reasoning against the papists exorcizing in baptism, hath these words: Seeing these Exorcists be not able to drive unclean spirits out of them in whom it is not doubted but that they are: why babble they, 
in Mar. 5, 9, in Mat: 12 26  that they cast them out of them, in whom they show no sign of their presence? Calvin saith, why a legion dwelled in one man, is not for us to inquire. Beza thus: Not of every ejection of devils out of the bodies of men may this be affirmed which Christ here concludeth: 
Chem. Har. li: 3 cap, 37. pag 70 in Ma, 9: 29, quest: 38:  seeing by covenant sathan may easily suffer himself to be cast forth of the bodies, that he might the more easily reign in the souls of men. Sometimes (saith Chemnicius) wicked spirits god permitting them, homines ingrediuntur, do enter into men, and do so possess them, that they dwell in them, 
Dan. de sortiariis, Chy in Math. 8.28  abusing their members after their will. Danaeus saith, fasting I refer to prayer, but not to the man possessed, as though by the scarcity of victuals and want of meat, sibi inhereutem Daemonem expellat, he should expel the devil inherent in him. For devils in Demoniacs are not fed with meat Again, the devils in the bodies of men have spoken. Chitreus giveth this definition of possession, that it is an affliction of the body delivered into the p●wer of Satan, where by both the body is 
Out of the fits the actions of Demoniaks be governed of the mind, in their fits by ●●e Devil.  rend, and of Satan inhabited, and the actions of the members governed not ●f the mind only, but partly also by the unclean spirit. Again saith he: As spirits be in a place definitively, so a devil, or more, occupy the body delivered up to their power: meaning that they are definitively in those bodies that is, they be in them, so that they be not any where else. 
De opertib. cre. part 1 lib 4 cap 10  See further in Chytrius. Zanchius hath these words. Satan doth so invade us, ut in nostra etiam peni●ret et ingrediatur corpora, that he doth pierce & enter into our bodies, and doth diversly affect the same within. I see not why we should not say substantia sua illos ingredi, that they do in their substance enter into them. And after some arguments to prove this, that they do substantia suae manner in hominibus, in their substance or essence abide in men: he concludeth thus. These things show that devils have been with in in such kind of men: and moved them hither and thither, as agents internal, not external. Piscator upon these words Luke 8.2. and c●rtaine women which he had healed of evil spirits, saith: a, hic n●tat adiunctum inherens. This preposition of, noteth here the adjunct inherent. Whereby it is evident that he holdeth the inherency of spirits in de moniacks Otho Casman maketh his entrance to his treatise of possession thus. 
Angelograp pag 606 what possession is,  There remaineth to be treated of, the entering of devils into the bodies of men & possession. He proceedeth. Possession is an action of the devil, wherein the devil entering into the body of man doth possess it, and exercise upon it the power received, to hurt and torment it. The parts of possession be two: the ingress of the spirit, the exercising of the power that is granted. The ingress is, whereby the devil first entereth into the body, and having entered doth possess it. and is in it. And handling this question how or after what manner devils be in men: he resolveth it thus we say that they be in them indeed even personally. For further confirmation of this inherency you have Centuria 1. lib. 2. pag. 502. Socrat. 7. Cap. 8. Minutius in Octavio. Dionysius Carthusianus in Luc. 4.35. et in Math.. 8.28. Sculietus in Medulla theolog. patrum. pag. 55. Luther. in Math. 8.28. Erasm. annot. in Act. Apo: 19.16. Gualther in Mar. 5.1. Brentius in Mar. 5.9. Bucer in Mat. 17.21. Ph. Melanchton lib. Epistolarun. Bullinger: Decad. 5. Ser. 3. Marlorat▪ in Marc. 5.15. Musc. in Math. 12.27.43. D. Fulke his answer to the Rhem. Test. Math. 17.21.  
By the premises, not only the falsehood, but the blasphemy of these men doth manifestly appear: who fear not to call this said doctrine of inherency of Satan in Demoniacs, Answer 
pag 17, 18 & 341,  an absurd & senseless opinion, and to reject it, as fond and frivolous. Hereby also doth appear their notorious impudence, in that notwithstanding the premises (whereof they cannot be altogether ignorant, 
Dialog. Disc epistle to the Reader pag, 2: pag 39,  specially if they have ransact so many libraries as they affirm they have) they stick not to say, that if the several writings of the most judicial & soundest Divines be exactly considered, we shall find, that not any one of them all d●e understand by Demoniacs, any such persons as are essentially possessed with a devil inherently in them. 
pag, 55. 56, 57, 58  Why I myself have heretofore ●●ewed the contrary, out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrisost●me Peter Martyr, Philip Melanchton, Beza Vogellius, and Danaeus, as appeareth by the Doctrine. You might well therefore have omitted these words, until you had returned answer to those testimonies, Ans. 
pag, 33  and likewise have restrained to say that the essential possession of devils is only a devise & dream of my own. Bu● it may in no ca●e beforgotten, that whiles you tell us all sound Divines are on your side, and not somuch as one with us, you produce not a sentence out of sound or unsound Divine: so as if we will believe what you say, 
prou. 14: 15,  we must take it of your word: which no wise man will do. Whereupon it cometh that ye are so barren here ●n the allegations o●●athers and new writers, who so abound therein else where: we may easily co●●ecture. How Bucer, Calvin, Marlo●a●●, Gua●ter & Beza, whom you coat in the margin as Divines on your side, be not with you but against you, it is plain by that is aforesaid. Wherein we may be somewhat confirmed by their silence, but more by go●g to the places ye yourselves have quoted.  
Lastly, if devils have no such in being in the possessed, surely some writer of account considering the letter of the scripture is so plain for it, and the general mistake of all former ages, would in his exposition have admonished the Reader lest he should stumble at these words in taking them literally. But I find no such caution in an●, tha● (searching) I have seen, till M. Deacon and M Walker now af●e● sixtee●e ●undreth years have T●m●ly put us in mind thereof. ●nly Peter Lombard saith, 
Sent. lib: 2 dist, 8. q, 4  It is not so perspicuous whether th●y entered really, or no. But this was his school fashion: to find a known a bulrush. Yet he doth not resolve of the matter. But it may be these smart disputers have found out that, wherein the skill and ●earning of all other have fa●led. Let us therefore weigh their reasons, when first we have heard their answer to our foresaid ma●e reason taken from the gospel.  
Whereas the letter of entering in, of dwelling, of casting out is urged these men shift of these places thus, They are not to be construed according to the letter. why so? Because the Lord saith, 
Reu. 3.20. Ioh 14. 2●  And I will enter in unto him. And again, and we will come unto him & dwell with him: which are not to be understood of an essential entrance.  
I answer, your boldness is exceeding great, who upon so slender a foundation durst presume to departed from the evident words of the scripture, so frequently used without any change. Because the Lord saith I will enter, a d yet doth not enter essentially, doth it thereupon follow, that also devils where it is said they do enter, should not enter essentially? Is there the like reason of the infinite an● of fin●e spirits? God being every where cannot be sai●e to enter but figuratively, but in the creature, which entereth by changing p●ace it is always proper: except we can show necessary reason to the contrary. By as good consequence you might prove that Aar●n the high priest never entered into the tabernacle of the congregation essentia●y. The Lord commanded the Israelites to make a tab r●acle for him, 
Exod 2●: 5, p●al ●. 7.9  that he might dwell amongst them. And David willeth the everlasting d oars to lift up their heads, that the king of glory might ●ter in but ●ay you, the King of glory did never enter in essentially, and therefore where it it is said that A●ron went into the tabernacle, it is by your leaden rule, to be taken that he went not in corporally. Such foolery if it might be suffered would make the scripture a nose of wax, if men might reject the letter upon every such absurd fancy. It irks me to spend time in reproving such dotage.  
But you say, Satan's entering into judas, (joh. 13.27) which is the same manner of speech, is nothing else but that Satan did dart or thrust the treason into his heart.  
I reply as before, judas was not a Demoniac, and therefore this example fits not the purpose. It is not necessary the same speech in suggestion, and possession should import the same thing, it being proper to the one and figurative to the other. But if you can show us a possession which was effected by darting only cogitations into the heart, we will yield unto you that these words of entering & dwelling imply no real inbeeing. This is in effect that you say. These words, entering into joh. 13.27. ●e not to be understood literally, therefore in the Scriptures concerning Demoniacs, the said words are not to be understood literally. By this reason, Christ entered not into Capernaum, as it is said he did Math. 8.5. Neither entered he in to a ship, as it is said Math. 8.13. Neither entered Mary into the house of Zacharias, as it is written Luk. 1.40. But some spiritual and mystical thing is in these places to be understood by the words, entered into: for to make this an argument you must have this for your proposition: These words entering into wheresoever they be found in Scripture, are not to be construed according to the letter. Now this proposition. I will be so bold as to deny, and put you to the proof thereof in your next learned Discourse.  
You go on further in your answer thus. Wheresoever the Scriptures speak of the devil his e●tring in, Answ. 
page 15. and 21.  & going out of the parties possessed, they speak it only by Metaphor. And this you prove by Mark. 1.23. which place you show at large cannot be taken in the li●erall sense. Answ 
pa. 17 How Mark 123 is to be expounded, it is evident by comparing it with Lu●e 4, ●3 & with acts 19: 16. As also by conferring Mark 5 2. with Luke 8.27 joh. 10 & 15 Luke 13: 32, 2 Tim. 4.17,   
After this manner (indeed) you argue. One place of Scripture concerning Demoniacs, viz. Mark. 1.23. can n●t be taken in the literal sense, but metaph●ricallie: therefore no scripture concerning Demoniacs Shall I instead of further reply proceed to reason after your manner? Thus then will I reason. divers places of Scripture concerning Christ, can not be understood literally, but metaphorically: therefore none. Or thus, Christ is said to be a door, a vine, ergo Christ was not borne of a virgin, crucified etc. H rod was a * fox, therefore not a king. Nero a * lion: therefore not a man. But supposing these words of entering in, and going out, wheresoever in holy scripture they have relation to the devil, were not to be understood literally, are they therefore to be taken metaphorically, as every where you tell us? No verily. There were a plain● metonymy of the effect, and not a metaphor. And considering you use the word effectively so often, and that you say oft, that this going out, 
pag ●6  and entering in of the devil, must be understood of an effectual and powerful operation: me thinks if you were so great clerks, as you seem to yourselves, & to some poor souls in the world: you should one time or other have be thought you of this error, which a scholar at the grammar school would quickly correct. If you will needs have here a metaphor, I pray you let it hereafter be made to appear, with his protasis and apodosis: that so we may conceive this hidden metaphor. But Orthod xus leaveth not here. And this I say further, 
Aut. pag 15  (quoth he) that you can not possibly allege throughout the whole Scriptures, any one text, wherein either Angels or Spirits, or devils are otherwise spoken of then only by metaphor. What? Is every Scripture of this kind metaphorical? why you yourselves do tell us, that where in Luk. 4.35. a man is said to have a spirit of an unclean devil, that by spirit we must understand the impulsion, motion, or inspiration of the spirit. Answer 
pag 20, 21  According to which sense, say you, the word spirit is vsualy observed both in th● old a●d new testament. And for confirmation thereof you allege Dan. 4.5.6. & 5.11, 12. Reu. 16.24. In these places then there is a metonymy, as every boy can tell you, and not a metaphor. 
Ioh 15, 2●.  Again, where Satan is said to enter into judas, that is, suggest or thrust the intended treason into him, another text alleged & expounded by yourselves: who ●e●th not that this is spoken metonimices, and not metaphoric. In the fift of the Acts it is said of ●annias, that satan filled his heart This filling, say you, in page 48, was effectively. Here then likewise is a metonymy, well metonymy or metaphor, or whatsoever ●t is, this they are very sure of, that it is not possible to show any one place of scripture, wherein that which is spoken of Angels or devils, is to be interpreted literally. No? What say you to Heb. 1, 14? where it is said, they are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for their sake, which shall be heirs of salvation? And concerning devils, these places must needs be understood according to the letter. Satan provoked David to number Isra●ll. The devil hath been a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him whe● h● sp●ak th' a li●, 
1 Chro. 21.1 Ioh 8.44, james 2 19, mar: 5: 12, Luc. 4, 2 Pet, 2.4 judas 6,  then speaketh be of his own, for he is a liar. The devils believe & tremble. All the devils besought jesus. jesus was 40. days tempted of the devil. The devil said, if th●u be the son of God etc. The devil set him on a pinnace of the temple. The Angel's sinned● are cast down into hell, to be kept unto damnation. The angel kept not their ●irst estate. They are reserved unto he judgement of the great day. Hereunto many more places might be added, but these suffice to show that many things spoken of sp●●t● are to be understood according to the very lat r. And so ar● without con●rouers● in particular the places to be interpreted concerning the devils entering into Demoniacs, & going out of them notwithstanding whatsoever these vain janglers, ●hich would be ●o●tors & yet understand not what they speak neither whereout affirm) prattle to the contrary. Which jangling of the●s is very ca●e, to be reselled, by the rules which a●l men deliver, when the ●●●tures are figuratively to be understood, 
Zanchius de o●e●b, ●ede pag. 66  and when not figuratively, but properly. Then namely are they t● be understood figuratively, when the s●nce, which the very words taken according to 〈◊〉 p●●per ●●g●i●●cati n sounds, agreeth not with other scr●tu●e, and with the analogy of faith: but is rather repugnant to the holy scriptures. On the other de● properly, when it doth not repugn. Now to what testimonies of the scripture, is this entering in, and g●einge out r●pug●a●●, being literally understood? 
Ad Gen. li 11, caP 1.  what scripture is there that cotrarieth this ingr●sse, inb●inge, and going out of the spirit we speak of? To the former rule let us add this other of Au●ustine. when any thing (saith he) is f und in the Scripture, which cannot without an absurdity be possibly interpreted literally that thing without doubt is spoken figuratively, & must receive some other signification, than the bare letter doth seem to import: and otherwise according to the letter, for that is to be understood. But from this said literal interpretation, there can arise no absurdity, therefore not a figurative, but the literal interpretation is here to be received.  
But you proceed in your answer saying: that we must not so strictly tie ourselves to the observation of words: else, 
pag. 67 1 Sa. 16, 14:  how will we understand this Scripture? The good spirit of the Lord departed from Saul: & an evil spirit of the lord came upon him. And so ye go on ●umbling the second time about an equal manner of entering by the holy spirit, and the bad. If Saul was possessed with an evil spirit (say you) when the evil spirit of the Lord came upon him, than also was he really possessed with the good spirit of god when he was anointed King, because it was so promised, That the spirit of the Lord should come upon him. 
1, Sam 10, 6 10:   
I answer first, that Saul was no Demoniac. Secondly, I have sufficiently showed your grossness in attributing a like manner of entering to God the infinite spirit, and to the wicked angel a finite creature. The good spirit being every where, cometh upon a man, by causing his graces more to appear, and to sprout forth in him: the evil spirit being of a limited nature, and therefore absent from one place, when he is in an other, comes upon and into a man, not by influence and instigation properly, but by personal & real presence This considered your hebrew is to no purpose, page 68 as also that, which you no less falsely then tediously avouch in the next page, wherein you match the good and evil spirit together in a self same manner of entering into men. Thus much for reply to the answer you give to the aforesaid main argument proving a real possession. Let us now examine your reasons, whereby you go about to overthrow the same, and to prove, that the devil did never really enter into, & inherently dwell in the possessed man's body. 
pag 65, & answer page 65, 68 Their firct argument against real possession. pag 34: 35.   
First you say, That there be no proper words or terms in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacs, expressing an essential possession: which the holy ghost wanted not if he had ever purposed to express such a matter. For neither the hebrew word achuzzah, nor iereshah, nor ierushah, morashah, n●r the grecke word etema, which is ordinarily observed in the new testament to set forth possession by, as the other be in the old, are used in any of the places of Scripture concerning Demoniacs: therefore there be no proper words or terms in any of the places of scripture concerning Demoniacs expressing an essential possession.  
Ans: I deny the argument. For there may be, nay there are other words and that very often used by the holy ghost, in those scriptures which concern Demoniacs, that manifestly declare the inherency of the spirit in Demoniacs: which these words, signifying possession, nor any of the same signification do not, had the sane been used by the holy ghost. Do I any where, ye Discoursers, or yet any man else, go about to prove the inherency of spirits in Demoniacs, from our English translation, and from the terms of possession and possessed? Surely neither myself, nor yet any other of mean understanding ever doted so much. For first I know very well, that the word in the Original signifieth neither possession, nor possessed. secondly, admit it did, it were very absurd from thence to conclude this inbeing of the spirit. A man may be possessed of an house, though he be not in it. So might the devil be possessed of a man, albeit he were not in him if there were nothing else to prove the inbeeing of Satan in men possessed. Whereby the vanity of this Prosyllogisme doth notably appear: and that these men keep much ado about moonshine in the water: Their leaves consumed about the terms of possession and poss ss●d, serving to no other purpose, but to proclaim their great skill (forsooth) in the hebrew & greek tongues. As for our English translators, they in translating the word Daemonizomenoi, in latin Daemoniaci, possessed with devils, did not respect so much the propriety of the word, as the condition of Demoniackes, and to explain that word, by showing (in part) what a Demoniac is. 
Cypri: ad Domiti: tract. 1, Chrysostom Tom: 5 de in compre, Dei natu: hom, 4. Aug. lib. 8 de Ciua●: D●i cap. 26  And from hence it is that the words possession and possessed have been used by Cyprian, Cheysostome, Augustine, and generally all ancient and latter writers until this day. Not to note the inbeing of the spirits in Demoniacs, (which need not) as these janglers fond lie pretend, but to show that the devil holdeth in his dominion or power the bodies of Demoniackes, as a man doth that which he possesseth.  
From this argument they proceed further to argue against real possession under certain foolish and unlearned questions: & Orthodoxus being out of breath, Phisial●gus starts up in his place, and proves it by good senseless reason. Do you imagine (saith he) that the Lord ever propounded any such end to himself in the creation of bodies? Arg. 2 
page. 70: 75. 76. and 341. Answ.   
Thus might one reason against that saving of the Apostle 1. Cor. 6.15. Also against the torment the bodies of the damned shall endure in hell. Do you imagine, the Lord ever propounded to himself any such end in the creation of bodies? They will answer, the Lord did not propound any such end, but man brought them upon him by sin. Even so do I▪ Man by his sin bringeth (sometimes) that body of his to be a receptacle and habitation for the unclean spirit, which otherwise should be the habitation of God, and temple for the holy ghost to dwell in.  
But go to, (saith he) What becomes of the soul, Argu. 3 
Pag 70:  all the while the devil is in the body? Romans' the soul still in that body, or is it utterly expelled, & thrust out of the same?  
It remains still in the body. Answer In a swoon the soul is in the body, though it do not show itself in her animal and organical operations. Even so in this case, the soul is in the Demoniacs body, though in his fits, not his spirit, but the unclean spirit, show itself by the effects.  
This naturalist goeth on thus. If there be a real possession, Arg. 4 
pag 73, 74 & 341.  then the soul during the time of the possession, shall not be accountable for any those peculiar actions of the body, which it never directed the body unto, nor gave consent unto.  
This is cunningly done of you, Ans: that in the last judgement you can divide the body & the soul asunder, that each may give account for their several actions apart. Secondly, your proposition is very childish. What if the devil force the tongue to blasphemy? what if he abuse the other members to all villainy? Shall not the creature which hath been deservedly yielded up into the power of the adversary, be guilty that it hath been an abused instrument to the creators dishonour? We may remember here, 
Gen: 3: 14.  that the devils instrument in deceiving Eva, received therefore punishment from the Lord. If you had weighed these things, you had bridled yourselves from much idle talk.  
Their fift argument followeth. Arg. 5 
pag, 55  The devil needeth no real possession in any man's body, therefore he doth not really possess any man's body.  
I answer your frivolous argument with the like. Answer: The devil needeth none of your actual possession, therefore he never possessed any actually, which you say sometimes he did. The devil needeth not to tempt men: therefore he doth not tempt any.  
But you say, Argu. 6 
pag, 75  The devil never received larger commission against any man's body, then against jobs, & yet was not he essentially possessed, therefore there was never any possessed essentially  
This argument halteth on the right leg, and is like to this: Ans. job had not (that we read) the pal●y, the stone, the colic, therefore ther● are no such diseases. If you will have this an argument, let this be your proposition, and hereafter prove it All the diseases & infirmities the body of man is subject unto by Satan, th●se had job.  

job. 2.6.  God permitted the devil to asslict job in his body, which before he had denied him: doth it thereupon follow that he might d●e to the body of job what he would? 
The kilinge of him excepted which he was expressly for bid to do. Mat. 4.5.8  To the devil great power likewise was granted over the blessed body of our Saviour. He took & carried it (in the air) out of the wilderness unto jerusalem, and set it on a pinnacle of the temple, and from thence he had it to an exceeding high mountain. Had Satan because of this leave and permission, absolute and full power over Christ's & jobs bodies, & not a limited power? Again, were this so, yet it may well be that though the devil could, yet he would not enter into job. Because the mark the devil aimed at, was to draw job from his fearing of God, and eschewing of evil, to the committing of evil, and blaspheming of God to his face: 
job. 2.3: 5  whereunto possession served not somuch, as other kind of afflictions.  
Physialogus goes on, and powers out other arguments of like liquor. Arg. 7, 
pag. 76,  What possession (saith he) the devil hath in any, the same hath be in all the posterity of Adam, yea in Adam himself. This proposition it were fit the Masters of Bedlam might resolve you in. Yet go on, what then? But there is no real possession in all the posterity of Adam Though I will not strive with you in this point, but willingly yield it, Yet the reason you render of it is very si●ly, to wit, for that the image of God is yet essentially in man. As if the Lord could not & doth not preserve that little rubbish of his image left in his creature though he suffer Satan to enter really into it. The Devil entered in to paradise before man's transgression: yea the aer carries a stamp of God's wisdom and power, yet the devil hath an essential being in it. But to come to the argument itself. Adam was not essentially possessed, and with him all his posterity: therefore there is no essential possession. Such an argument for all the world is this. All men have not the gout, therefore none have the gout. I marvel how Physialogus could make it without the help of Orthodoxus. Although this argument deserve rather to be hissed at, then answered, yet I return that the consequence is faulty. Answer, It followeth not that none of Adam's posterity be really possessed if all be not: because Adam and every one of his posterity are not by the appointment of god, to taste of every infirmity that they by their sins have brought themselves in danger of, and made themselves subject unto. Adam and every son of his are subject to the leprosy, palsy, stone, gout etc. yet is not every one a leper, every one hath not the palsy, stone, etc.  
But go to Physialogus, open your pack to the bottom. Then take this with you. Arg. 8 
pag 77.  If an human body be capable only of an human soul, then is it uncapable of an essential devil: but the first is true: therefore also the latter.  
If this proposition of yours Physialogus be undoubtedly true, Ans. as you do tell us: I marvel how you & Orthodoxus do live: & whether you two breath & draw air, whether also you receive any sustenance. For if you breath, or receive susteamnce into your bodies, then seeing aer, meat, drink, be not an human soul, but other substances: either you two have no human souls, or your two bodies be capable of other substances besides your souls.  
You proceed, Satan so possesseth, as Christ invadeth his house, Argu 9 that is, dispossesseth him of his house, for so appeareth your meaning Ans. to be. Arg 10 This you say indeed, but prove it not. Again Physialogus 
pag, 78:  will make it good by a distribution of inbeing: of all the kinds whereof he sees not which may be given to this real possession.  
I answer, The wicked spirit is in the body, Answer: as in a definitive place. What now Physialogus? Are you struck dead with this answer, that you have not one word to say? Take hold then of an other argument if you can go no further in this. Thus than you reason. If the devil be really in the body, he is there either hipostatically, Arg. 11 
Si dicimus eos revera, (say they) in the margin) atque a deo, autopro sopos ad esse et in esse: esset hoc, vel hypostatice, vel formaliter, quod est absurdum Ans:  making one person with the body, or else essentially, to give an essential form to the intended operations. But he is in the body neither of those ways. I grant it, and yet you never a whit the nearer. I cannot but marvel at your proposition, which though it be lame, is yet of admirable force. It is able to prove that the devil is no where. For whersoevet he is, he is there either hypostatically, or formally, but he is in no place either of both ways, and so no where. Nay yourselves selves may be proved not to be in your houses, nor in any other place, because you make not one hypostasis with it, nor give unto it an essential form. Make much of this proposition, as of a rare jewel. It is as good as Gyges' his ring, by which you may go invisible: which faculty would serve you especially M. Deacon for many strange feats.  
In the twelfth place they argue thus. Arg. 12 
pag 78: and 97.  If devils have an essential being in men, than their said being there may be perceived by corporal sense: but the latter is false, therefore the first.  
Answer 1, 
Psa. 34.1:  By this reason the Angels of the Lord pitch not their tents about them that fear him, neither do they minister to the heirs of salvation: for this cannot be perceived by corporal sense. There be many things which we know and perceive only by faith. Secondly, the assumption or second part of the argument I deny: & affirm, that we may know by corporal sense, when the devil is really and substantially inherent within man, even by the supernatural effects & operations which Satan in such case useth to send forth: which as signs do signify and declare this inherency. Now these signs or effects are by corporal sense discerned. That which in the general we know and perceive by faith, that in the particular, touching this or that person, we know by sense.  
Their last argument is this, The devils violent rending & tearing with other the unnatural actions, Argu. 13 
pag 79.  may effectually be wrought in the man possessed, though the devil never essentially enter into his body: this entrance therefore to such purpose is needless, and so by consequence there is none.  
The Antecedent or first part of this argument is false, Answ. as I have showed in my Narration page 21. But supposing it were true, we must know that it is a judgement, or an increase of this said judgement, when besides the vexation of Satan, our bodies shallbe a receptacle and place of abode for the unclean spirit to dwell in, which were made to be a temple for the holy ghost. And in this respect (were the antecedent true) there is sufficient to move the Lord to permit Satan to enter into the body, and Satan to desire this entrance. And thus much for your first conclusion, no less absurdly handled by you, then propounded. Wherein I have been the larger, because it is the main point controverted: and as it were the foundation or corner stone, whereon our whole building doth stand.  
Your second assertion is, That Devils have no true natural bodies peculiar to themselves: which makes as much for his not being really in men's bodies, as it doth for his not being really in the Aer. But I will not follow you at every turn, lest I should too much distrust the Readers judgement: Besides I am more than half weary already with your senseless disputes. Many famously learned in the Church both of ancient time, and this present, attribute a kind of body to Spirits, not gross and palpable, as these inferior bodies be, but of an incomprehensible subtlety: of which number are Tertullian, Augustine, Bernard, the Schoolmen, Zanchius with many others. These Discoursers take upon them first to refel the arguments which make for bodies, & then propound some of their own against them. In refelling Celestial bodies they show themselves turn sick Every thing wheels so about with them, 
pag 81:  that they know not where they are. If devils (say they) have celestial bodies and enter into men whose bodies are Elementary, than we should have a compound supernatural motion both in respect of the devils, whose proper motion should be Circular, & of the man whose motion is down right. As if intelligible nature's had a simple, and not a compound motion But it were tedious to unfold all the fooleries of this argument. I will therefore pass over this, and the rest of their wise refutation, and come to their own confirmation of it. How do you prove Spirits have no bodies? First out of these words, 
pag 94 Luke 24: 39,  Spirits and devils have no flesh & bones, as you see me have. This place proves no more but that they have not naturally palpable &  bodies like men's. For otherwise you might conclude the Aer to be also void of body, because it hath no flesh & bones. Again say you. 
Hebrew 1: 7:  The Lord hath made his spirits his messengers, & his ministers a flame of fire. From hence you must conclude thus, They which be as fire have no bodies: which is true if fire itself have no body: you see then how wisely you reason. Thirdly, which hath most force in it, and for which cause I take this pains to repeat these reasons, They which can be in the body of a man to the number of a legion, that is six thousand, six hundred, sixty & six cannot possibly be any corporal substances: 
Mark 5: 9  But the devils may be in the body of a man to the nomb●r of a Legion, that is 6666. & therefore they cannot possibly be any corporal substances. To let pass the proposition, though the moats in the sun beams be bodily things, and yet it may be as many as a Legion in as narrow room as a man's body: did you dream you Discoursers, when you put down this assumption? Or hath the truth wrung from you a true confession whether you would or no? By this one argument, all the first part of this Dialogue, wherein you oppugn the real inherency of spirits in possessed bodies is overthrown. It can not be but liars should be taken tripping at one time or other. Now than if you please, we will proceed to your fourth Dialogue.   

A Survey of the Fourth Dialogue  
In the fourth Dialogue you contend, 
pag. 101:  That Devils cannot assune bodies unto them. Where first it is to be observed that this disputation springs from the former, as the special from the general. For bodily possession, say you, is either by assuming of a body, or by transforming. Whereby it must needs be, that all assuming of bodies, is bodily possession: but only good Angels (according to the divinity of this dialogue) assume true bodies, and therefore they only possess: & so be the only torments of the possessed. Yet our Saviour in freeing men from such molestours, doth usually term them unclean spirits. Such is the dotage which unawares you run into, whilst with more confidence then with either wit or learning, you maintain these absurd positions. Again, this distribution of bodily possession, into assumption of bodies, or transformation, would tie all bodily possession to one of these two, (for the general must of force be comprehended in all the specials) whereas corporal possession requireth neither of both, the spirits in their own substance, without taking any foreign body, entering into such as be permitted into them. But so you be talking you care not greatly what you say, be it never so absurd.  

In Math. 4. ver: 3, 5, 8, Angelogra. page, 556,  To prove the affirmative part, I mean, That Devils can put upon them bodies, that so they may visibly appear unto men, & familiarly converse with them, I will not use many words, nor authorities, sith the matter is so evident by daily experience.  

August: super Gen 11 Aquinas 2, 2 q. 165, art. 2 A●g. 4: Mercer. in Gene. 3, 1: Bulling. Decad. 4: ser. 11 Calvin in Gen: 3, Danei Isag: part 2, cap: 34, Hunnius disput. 4 propo- 14, 15, Zanch. de operibus cre. part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Szeged, lo come, pag, 400 P: Martyr lo come. class, 1, sect. 15. et cap. 10, sect, 25,  Piscator saith to this purpose thus. It must not seem incredible, that the devil having taken upon him the shape of man, should come unto men & have speech with them. For that we see he did when he tempted Christ. Neither must this seem less credible of evil angels, then of good, by whom it is certain this was often done: as the examples in Scripture do testify. Otho Casman a late approved writer (who is very often quoted by these men, they thereby pretending that he consenteth with them, when he is as contrary to them, as light is to darkness) saith after this manner: It is so certain that the devils assume and move divers kinds of bodies, diversly form, that it cannot be denied. I ommit here to produce the testimonies of other learned writers, as (¶) Augustine, Th● Aquinas, Mercer, Bullinger, Caluin, Danaeus, Hunnius, Zanchius, Szegedinus, with sundry others. Only I will add a few lines out of Peter Martyr that great learned man, that it may the better appear unto us, that this is both possible and easy, and that this said assuming may the better be conceived and under stood of the unlearned. The devils (saith he) can in very deed enter into a body made before, and formerly existing. (meaning into created or true natural bodies) Sometimes the devil putteth on an airy body: but that he doth not form or quicken as the soul doth our body: neither doth he make it to pass into one substance with himself, as did the word of god with an human body: for devils can put of those bodies, when they please. The devil, as saith Augustine, fitteth unto himself some body as it were a garment. Again, These bodies which the spirits do apply unto themselves, be airy: 
ibidem sect. 2●  for even as water is congealed into ice, and sometime hardeneth till it become crystal, even so the aer wherewith spirits do  themselves, is thickened, so that it becometh a visible body. But if it may seem that the aer alone is not sufficient, they can also mingle some vapour or water withal, whereof colours may be made, for this we see to be done in the rainbow. The spirits do thicken & engross these bodies, by strait trussing those parts together, for otherwise they might not be seen or touched. And yet we say not here, 
sect. 22●  that the devil doth either create or make such things, but only that he is a minister serving unto nature. Even so the husbandman, when he tilleth and soweth his ground, & the gardener when he pruneth and delveth a vine, do not create the corn or wine, but only do help nature. So Augustine saith, that jacob did not bring forth the colour upon the sheep, but did only rightly apply the forms & shapes. But it seemeth wonderful how they can so speedily bring these things to pass. A skilful artificer will work any thing both handsomely & speedily. But give the same instruments unto an ignorant and unskilfullman, and he will do it neither readily, nor yet very handsomely. Even so any spirit, as a skilful artificer will bring more to pass in a minute, then by the accustomed order of nature can be wrought in a long time. Thus far goeth Peter Martyr.  
The general consent of writers as it should seem, did wring from you this modesty, 
pag: 100  that you would undertake no absolute denial hereof, but only make a question of it. As if it were a small matter to make Question of things substantially true in themselves, and universally received. Would you have Christians be●●me Academics? or hath not the world had enough of Peter Lumbards' divinity? It seems you have little regard of troubling the Church. I wish they may have more which have the allowance of such books to the press, yet seeing such lavish Discourses must come abroad, lest any should be deceived by your vain gloze, I will proceed to examine your doing. The argument upon which you ground, is after this manner. If the Devil assume to himself a body, 
pag 100 101 102, 103: & 104, 105.  it is either a true body, or a fantastical body, one created some time before, or then newly, either the body of a living man, or of a dead man: But none of all these, & therefore no body. I answer first, that he assumeth both a true body, and a fantastical body: sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. Secondly that he taketh a created body. If you demand by whom? I answer by himself. You reply, that creation is proper to God alone: and I rejoin, that creation is twofould. One when a thing is made of nothing, as all things were in the first beginning, in which power no creature may challenge any part: the other when bodies are framed of some matter already being: In this kind the Lord doth use the ministry of his Angels. If it seem hard to give the name of creation to this latter kind: then I answer, that the body the devil usually assumeth, is an uncreated body. The matter of his body is from god & from his creation, it being made of aer thickened or of some such like matter. But the (¶) form & in that it is a body, having the bigness, proportion, colour, voice & motion of a body, is merely from the devil. Here by I say it is plain, that it is an uncreated body 
* I do not mean that the devil doth form or quicken an airy body, as the soul doth our body: but that from him it hath the form, fashion, and shape of a body.  form by the devil, but not created by him. For than he should make it of nothing. Neither is it created by god, the alone creator: because it hath not the 
* I do not mean that the devil doth form or quicken an airy body, as the soul doth our body: but that from him it hath the form, fashion, and shape of a body.  form, nor that it is a body from him. And yet notwithstanding it is a thing existing in nature, before the devil assume it, as every child may perceive. And that this spirits be able to perform we cannot but acknowledge, except we suppose them to be of weaker strength than other creatures. Doth not the sun by his heat frame in the dunghill the body of a mouse, and give unto it also life and sense? Philosophy and experience doth teach thus much. It were absurd to imagine Angelical natures to be of less ability than the sun, especially in a matter of less difficulty by somuch, as it is more easy to frame & assume a body one lie, then to quicken and endue it with sensible form. And why should it not be as possible and easy for the devil thus to compact and frame a body, for height, length, breadth, with all the parts & due proportions thereof of any kind whatsoever, like to man, dog, cat, toad, etc. & enter into it, as to cause a tempest, & those other accidents whereof we read in the history of job? Thirdly I answer that in apparitions, 
joh. 1.  which are not properly called possessions, he neither taketh a living man's body, nor a dead man's, but only such a one as is made specially for that purpose, which when the errand is done, is dissolved into the same nature it was of before. And whereas you tell us concerning the dead man's body, that if the devil should assume the carcase of a man lately deceased, he should appear in a white winding sheet: I see no reason of this winding sheet, except it be for you M. Deacon, to do your penance in. But you add, men's bodies were created for the Lord, & not for infernal spirits. True. 
page, 100LS  To this end man's body was not created. But hereunto hath man made his body subject by his own transgression. You say further. If the devil can assume to himself a dead body, than we must needs imagine a resurrection of bodies before the general judgement, and that performed by the devil, whereas that power is proper to god. This proposition is false. In the resurrection the soul and body shall be united together, and by this conjunction the body again quickened. Now this can only jehovah do. And after this manner many dead bodies arose and came out of the graves, & appeared to many at the resurrection of Christ. But here is no such conjunction: 
Math. 27. 5●  neither doth the spirit assuming, quicken the body assumed. The devil is too weak to perform either of those. So that for any thing you say, he may take living or dead body, which he please. Thus we see there is no truth nor soundness in this argument, but a mere trifling & abusing of the Reader, as well concluding that neither good angels can possibly take bodies upon them (contrary to the express truth in the scripture) as that the wicked cannot. Which kind of affirmations would rather be confuted by good sound correction, then by disputation of any man of learning, though as mean as myself: And this is all the wise proof you bring. The rest of the dialogue is spent in refelling the reasons for the contrary, which be chiefly five.  
The first, Good Angels have appeared in assumed bodies, and therefore wicked Angels may do likewise. 
pag. 10: 5 Zanch. de operibus r●dē part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 10: Piscator in Math, 4.3.   
This argument you would shift of by divers foolish untruths, first, for that it consisteth not of things essentially alike in every respect. Why Sirs? Have you found out a difference in the essence of good and wicked Angels? All sound divines hitherto have made their difference only in their quality. But you are nothing dainty of such novelties. Well to let this pass: How show you there is a divers reason of them in this point? In this sort: The privilege of celestial Angels, is not incident to the infernal. To grant you this, what do you build from hence? But to assume a body is the privilege of celestial angels. This is a second untruth. You were ashamed it may be, to express it plainly (I would be glad to hear you were grown so bashful) but it must necessarily be understood. If to assume bodies were the celestial angels privilege, the Lord which is the maintainer of their privileges, would never have suffered Satan to have entered into the body of the serpent. You are to understand therefore, that this assuming is not done or permitted by god for the benefit of the spirits, but for the comfort or discomfort of man. You add. Neither yet are they equal with the celestial Angels in knowledge and power. It is enough if the evil angels have knowledge and power to compact and frame a body of the air and such like matter, & as a garment to put it on. And this knowledge and power they have.  
Fourthly, say you, the bodies wherein good Angels appeared, were not created by themselves, 
pag, 106:  but by god. I answer, if they were such as were immediately made of nothing, the Lord was the only workman of them: but if of some forebeeinge matter, their ministry might have a place. But admit they were immediately made, may not the Lord also create bodies for wicked spirits to use in their special services? You imply he will not. It is presumption to search further into God his will, than his word and actions do warrant us: and it is blindness not to acknowledge so much, as they lead us unto. Seeing then the Lord in just judgement permitteth Satan to be a lying spirit in the mouths of all Ahabs prophets, 
2 Thess, 2, 9  and to come in all deceivableness by Antichrist to beguile the reprobate: is it any thing contrary to his holy justice and will, to allow him such means, whereby he may accomplish the vengeance determined? Even so in this case.  
Fiftly you say, that howsoever good Angels have appeared, ye● of evil Angels no example can be given.  
The examples be more than the hairs of your head. But you dare avouch any thing against the testimony of the whole world, christian and heathen. To omit ancient examples (lest perhaps you say they be past date, the like being ceased in our times, as you do say of possession) the apparition near Augusta about the year 1503. under Maximilius the first Emperor is famous, which carried the resemblance of Margarite a Roth abbottess of Etestetten, 
Tho. Erastus de Lami●s, pag. 17.  & could not only be seen and handled, but also speak most significantly. George Sabin, a man honoured for his learning with the dignity of knighthood by Charles the 5. and son in law to Phil. Melancthon, 
Sabin, Elg: 1. Eleg. 3 Eleg. lib, 4 Eleg. 4  writeth of three apparitions in his time, one of six spirits in the form of monks, ferried over the Rhine by a fisherman of Spire: The second of a whole chariot full of monks: the third of a maid wooed by a spirit in the similitude of a man. And it is known what of late hath happened at Bertin, and other places of Saxony. At Spandaw in Germany in the year 1594. Sep. 13. the devil appeared in the shape of a man, 
Gallob●lg. lib. 11:  to a young youth Gabriel Crummer, offering him great riches if he would promise to be at his pleasure, & this not once, but the second time. To him also appeared Gabriel a spirit in show of a good angel, four several times. In the sane town the devil did walk visibly in the view of divers. It were end less to insist upon rehearsal of the manifold examples of this kind. Yea something to this purpose may be said out of holy Scripture. chrysostom writing upon the patience of job saith, that he which brought tidings of the house, & destruction of his family & cattle, was not a man, but a spirit. For if thou wert a man (saith he) how didst thou know that this wind came from the wilderness? or if thou wert there, how happeneth it that thou wast not destroyed with the rest? Some thing also it maketh (as I think) for confirmation hereof, that four several messengers use not only the same speech, but the very same words: I only am escaped to tell thee. Also that they come so patt one after the other, before the former had ended his speech, 
job. 1. v: 15 16.17.19:  & that one of them saith The fire of god is fallen from heaven, and hath burnt up etc. Piscator saith, 
in Math. 4 3.  that when the devil came to Christ in the wilderness to tempt him, he came in specie viri etc. in the shape of a man, as angels are wont to do when they appear unto men. And this we shall the rather believe, if we remember that the devil is said to come unto Christ, to have speech with Christ: that the tempted him in communication, Hither also appertaineth, 
1 Sam. 28: 7: 8:  that witches are said to have their familiar spirits. Except the devils did put upon them bodies, and in them were familiarly conversant with these wicked women, how could there be any familiarity between a devil & a woman? Did not also the angels thus as oft as they did familiarly converse with men? Besides who knoweth not this to be verrified in daily experience? 
de operibus red: part, 1 lib. 4, cap. 16  Zanchius having affirmed that (in his judgement) devils can assume bodies, and in them appear, speak etc. useth these words. More over there be very many, & those very grave writers, who affirm that this hath fallen out often. Augustine writeth so of this matter, that he saith it is impudency to deny it. And a little after Zanchius saith as much himself. Without the note of impudency this cannot be denied. And who is there living that doubteth of the devils appearing to some here and there in visible forms and shapes at this day? Or that witches and devils in bodies assumed, have familiar speech & communication together? Do we not daily hear of such occurrents? Do not witches in all countries, make thus much known by their confessions? with many circumstances thereunto appertaining, which all tend to the confirmation hereof. Verily the devil his assuming of bodies and appearing in them unto men, is so manifest by experience in all ages, past and present, that we may well say with Augustine and Zanchius, It is impudency to deny it. Thus impudent are none, but those who either deny that there are devils, or witches. The lesser of which is horrible impiety. This then is an other untruth.  
And here (by the way) we may assure ourselves that the Discoursers deny this latter, and are of opinion there a●e no witches, n r any bewitched. For if devils cann●t assu● bodies, without which they cannot appear, nor have any familiarity with men: if ●econdly Satan have no power to torment, vex or any way t● afflict t●e b●d● of man as these men also tell us, in affirming that there is no actual possession in these days of the gospel how are there any who have familiar spirits, whom the scripture calleth witches? Or that be afflicted in their bodies by the ministry of Satan & malice of a witch, which is that we call bewitching? This is something confirmed by their oft quoting of M. Sk●t his Discovery of witchcraft, and their commending of that his exposition of 1. Sam. 28.8. etc. Hereby it is manifest that together with M. Sk●t they hold that there are no witches, nor any at this day bewitched. They do not indeed deliver this in plain terms, least happily they should thereby irritate the reverend judges of the land, by making them guilty of shedding much innocent blood: but you see that from some of their public assertions it is to be gathered by necessary collection: and how they approve of that book which denieth witches & witchcraft, yea do commend it: saying: that if without prejudice, and with a single respect to the truth, we would but deliberately ●●ruse that privileged discourse, etc. then should we without doubt see a diabolical discourse published with privilege.  
Lastly you say that the aforesaid argument is a deceivable Elench, from may be, to being indeed. I pray you Discours●rs is not the question of may be? Is not your position in the beginning of this dialogue, whether spirits & devils can assume etc. We use then no Elench in the matter, but you a mere dotage, which like the butcher have forgotten the knife in your mouth. Besides, this & such like arguments be rather ab posse, ad posse, than a posse ad ●ss●: as a child that hath learned but Sum & P ssum, may (helped a little) be able to tell you.  

page, 107. PsAl. 78 49.  The second reason for assuming of bodies, are the words of the psalm: He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, indignation, and wrath, by sending angels of evil. here you afford a double answer. First, that Angels of evil, be angels that were denouncers of evil, that is, Moses & Aaron, as Trem●lius interprets it, with whom you accord. Secondly that whatsoever these Angels be, yet they are said only to be sent among them, not into them, and therefore no proof can be had from hence for assuming of bodies.  
I reverence the authority of ●eme●ius, and dare not take upon me to censure his doing: yet against it I might al●eadg the conse●t of many interpreters. ●ut instead of them all the book of wisdom shall alone serve, which alluding, to this place expoundeth those Angel, ●f evil, to be horrible & fearful sights. They were scattered, 
chap: 17: 3.4.14:  (saith he) s●ar●ng b●●ibly, & were ●●●bled with ap●●●ritions. Again, terrible vi●●ons and sorrowful sights did appear unto them. Again, Sometimes they were troubled with monstrous apparitions. Hereby it is apparent that these angel's ●f evil were construed by the learned jews in ancient time, not to be Moses and Aaron, but wicked spirits. Secon●ly, that though they were not sent into the Egyptians, (for then they should ●aue possessed them, which never any affirmed) yet they were sent amongst them in terrible forms, which could not be but by assuming some sen●●ble bodies, which is sufficient against you: and as much as is enforced from this scripture. And now let the Reader choose, whether he will rather follow the book of wisdom, or your book of folly. 
pag. 108.   
The third argument is: The devil assumed the body of the Serpent when he tempted Evah.  
You oppose hereunto a threefould reply: First, If the devil entered essentially into the Serpent, then either he became an essential Serpent, or the serpent an essential devil. Surely you are bereft of common understanding which so confidently blatter out such palpable ignorance. Doth not god essentially dwell in all things? But is the creature thereby made god, or God the creature? Secondly, you say that the serpent in this place is not a natural serpent, 
pag 109. 110 111: 112: 113  but metaphorically the devil. It were tedious to refute particularly your childish proofs. If all the circumstances in Genesis 3. could not induce you to acknowledge a natural serpent, as the instrument of sathan in that temptation, yet the Analogy of the ●econd Adam (which wrought our salvation by untwisting that thread, which the devil had spun to our destruction) ought to have prevailed something with you. 
Mat. 3.16: 17  Our Saviour being baptized the spirit of god descended upon him like a dove: and a voice from heaven proclaimed him withal to be the beloved son of god. By which it is plain that as in overthrowing the first Adam there was a wicked spirit, so in establishing the second Adam there was the holy spirit: as to deceive the first there was used a serpent, so to confirm the second Adam there was used a dove: as the first by the devils fraud in the serpent, was quite stripped of all saving graces, and disherited from being the son of god, so the second by the spirit of truth in the dove, was as it were visibly replenished with the fullness of all grace, and not only himself then solemnly anointed to be the son of god, but also by whom all the Elect should be made partakers of the same dignity. From whence then I reason by Analogy thus. That if at the second Adam his installing into his office there was visibly and substantially apparent a Dove, wherein was repletively the holy ghost: then at the deceiving of the first Adam, there was visibly & substantially a serpent, wherein was definitively the wicked spirit. The nature of Opposites require that where one is real, the other should be also real. And the serpent & the dove be usually in the scriptures set one against the other. And thus much for your second reply which you shut up with a Probatum est, because Reignald Skot holding the same opinion, his book and the opinion itself, is very authentically privileged in our English Church by public authority. 
pag. 115.  As for M. Skot there is none of any sound understanding, but he allows his judgement better in a Hopground, then in a case of divinity. And as for his & your Privilege whereon you brag yourself so much, take heed lest you straining your M. his countenance too far, to bear out your absurdities, he pluck not his cloth over your ears. 
page, 116,  Your third reply yealds, that Satan was there together with the serpent, but not in the serpent, and you would feign prove, The devil could apply the serpent's tongue to his purpose, though he entered not in essentially into him, no less than a Minstrel can make his pipes sound what he please, albeit he enter not essentially into the gabs. And in this merry conceit you fling about your arms like wind mill sails in a morryce dance, thinking yourselves some jolly fellows. But if the pride of your jollity be past, let me demand of you this question, what is the true efficient of the sound of the pipe? The minstrel, or the motion of the aer by his breath? You must needs answer it is the motion of the aer: for the pipe will sound as well by a pair of bellows tied at his arm, as by the breath of his mouth: as is apparent in Organs and other wind instruments. 
Arist. Phys. lib. 8. cap: 2.  Besides it is a rule in nature, That the mover and the thing moved, must needs touch one an other without intercourse of any thing coming between. Now than if the piper be not the true efficient, it is no marvel if no necessity force him to creep into the bag: but if the breath and the moving of the aer be the true worker indeed, that must both enter into the bag, & into the pipe too, or else nothing at all will be done. But you will reply, that the spirit may be likewise not the principal efficient, but remaining with out as the Minstrel doth, might send something into the serpent to cause such a working. I answer, the spirit is the principal efficient. For in supernatural works it must needs be the principal mover should be supernatural in regard of that work. And therefore seeing the wicked spirit is chief agent, it is necessary he should be joined immediately to that which is moved by him, without interposition of any other thing. If then you can count your game, you shall see you have got nothing by this reckoning, but only a vain hope to make yourselves merry withal for a time.  
The fourth argument for assuming bodies is drawn from the Angels speaking in baalam's ass, 
Num. 22: 2● pag: 117. 118  which you labour to infringe two ways: first for that it was not an angel, but Ichovah himself which caused that speaking: secondly if it were an angel, yet he speaks no otherwise then the former similitude of a Minstrel did declare. For the first, I answer you argue deceitfully in opposing jehovah and an angel in this action, as if they could not be joint workers, jehova principally, the angel ministerially: especially seeing it is the manner of the scripture to attribute that to the Lord without mention of any other, which notwithstanding he administereth by means. jehovah (salth Moses) talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. 
Deu. 5.4.22.  And again after he hath repeated the ten commandments, he saith: These words jehovah spoke unto all your multitude in the mount etc. In which he teacheth that jehovah was a Lawgiver, & nameth no other whose office was used therein: Yet Stephen saith, They received the law by the ministry of angels. And S. Paul: It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 
Act. 7, 53: Galat. 3.19.  You see then how trifling this argument is. But you will say: In the giving of the law, the scripture doth warrant a ministry of angels, but in the matter of Balaam no such thing is any where taught. I answer, It is a good rule observed by some for interpreting the scriptures Aequalis est doctrina, quae venit a phrasi aequali. Equal manner of speech doth afford equal doctrine. Besides shall we think the greatest works of all other, as the giving of the law, 
Luke 22, 43:  and the comforting of Christ himself were performed by angels, & that the Lord reserveth the basest and meanest actions to be done immediately by himself.  
Great cause therefore had those famous learned men Lyra, Martyr, Zanchius, etc. to acknowledge an angel in this business, whose judgements if you had weighed and followed, it had been more commendation for you, than thus to rove at random with your bolts. Further you urge, It could not be an angel that opened the asses mouth, because the Angel stood before Balaam with a drawn sword in his hand to have slain him, and Angels can not be in sundry places at the same instant. I answer, Seeing the Lord did open the mouth of the ass, and baalam's eyes by angels as hath been proved, that not one angel alone, but divers were used in this business. He which hath so many thousand of thousands waiting upon his throne for all designs, should he for defect of servitors be feign to work in his own person? Whereas you say secondly, Admitting it was an Angel, yet he spoke no otherwise then the similitude of a Minstrel declareth. I answer, If he spoke in such sort, he must needs then really be in the ass, considering the true efficient of the pipes sound, is the moving of the aer (which is essentially in the pipe) and not the Minstrel. Besides in all things which are moved, the Mover is immediately applied and joined unto the thing moved. And why should Angels necessarily be sent in person to those several places where business lie, if they were able to accomplish them being absent? I pass over your ridiculous conceit, 
page 119.  of the Angels essential conversion into the ass, and how he was ridden, and galloped, & spurred, & stricken etc. which things no doubt, & more the ass had suffered, if either of you had been in balaam's stead: For set a fool on horseback, and he will gallop.  

page, 120, 1 Sam, 28:  The fift argument for assuming of bodies, is from the apparition in the likeness of Samuel: which example, if you bound your question with strict terms of a true natural body, we use not in proof of this matter. For the sounder judgement is, That apparition was a mere fantasy and illusion of Satan. But if you intent (as indeed you do) that evil spirits take upon them neither true nor fantastical bodies, that is, which be truly material & visible, though not compacted of flesh and bone, in which sense only we oppose it to a true body in this place, than this example is of force to press you. You incline to Reig. Skott his opinion who would have it but a mere cozening trick of the witch at Endor, without any apparition at all either to the king, 
pag. 125.  or to the witch. But this fancy wanteth sufficient foundation to stand on. M. Skott would prove that Saul saw nothing, because he asked the witch what she saw, and what was his form? It is true that Saul saw nothing at first, 
1 Sam: 28: 13 14.  for things were done by degrees, as the text plainly shows. Before the resemblance of Samuel came up, the witch saw other spirits like Gods ascending, then when they were vanished she beheld the form of Samuel, yet not fully ascended: at which time she cried out and answered Saul his demand. After the Image was now perfectly come up, Saul also himself saw him, as may be gathered by his bowing himself and falling down: for otherwise Saul, was of that temper both in regard of his regal dignity, and his own natural courage, that it was not his manner to stoop to nothing. If one then shall reason thus, Saul saw nothing when he asked the question, therefore neither afterwards when he bowed himself, there is no validity in such a consequence. Therefore M. Skott fails much in his proof: he hath not sufficiently showed that nothing appeared unto Saul. And admitting he had cleared that, yet this was but one part of his task. He should also have made it plain that neither the witch saw any thing, before he had grown to this general conclusion of no apparition at all. The devil at this day visibly appeareth to many of our wisemen and wise women, when they which come to ask counsel of them, neither see nor hear any thing, but have their answer at the second hand from their mouth. Were it so then that Saul neither saw nor heard any thing, but what he received from the witch, this notwithstanding, there might well be an apparition: and without controversy there was so. Otherwise how could the witch have known Saul? and foretold those things which afterwards fell out accordingly? 
Page 125:  To the former of these you answer (and what ye will say to the latter we shall know hereafter) that she of herself might and did know him very well, howsoever she dissembled the same for the present. This is incredible .. That a silly woman dwelling far from the court, should so well know the King, that though he changed himself, put on other raiment, & went by night, accompanied only with two men, and thus did what he could to be unknown, (because being known he could not bring his purpose to pass) yet she should know him. Especially if withal we remember, that she was a witch, or at least reputed so to be, & that Saul had destroyed the witches, and sorcerers out of the land: 
pag. 126.  and therefore she could have small heart to look the king so often in the face, whereby to attain to this perfect knowledge of him. And where you say that the conference performed to Saul, was cunningly delivered by the witch alone in her cell, she being a cunning Ventriloquist, as all Pythonists are: who can very hydeouslie speak in the bottom of their bellies, with an hollow counterfeit voice, and therein by practice she was very expert. I answer: you may tell us also that the moon is made of a green cheese, but we may choose whether we will believe you. Yea, I for my part will as soon believe this, as that For how could this silly woman (with all her cunning and craft) foretell, first the overthrow of the Israelites. 2. that it should be on the morrow. 3. that in that overthrow Saul and his sons should be slain. Neither is it credible that she was able to make known to Saul the true cause of this fierce wrath of the Lord, ready to be executed upon him, and that his kingdom being rend from him, should be given to David: all which be mentioned in this conference. Moreover, if the witch did use a mere cozenage, and that she herself did see nothing, it should seem this art of sorcery, consisteth only in the opinion of men, and that in very deed witches can do no more by Spirits, neither have any greater familiarity with than, than all others have. But then wherefore doth the scripture condemn them for counseling with spirits? 
Deut: 18, 11, 1 Sam. 28, 7, 8.  and mention their having of familiar spirits? For these reasons I think it stands better with reason to join with the universal consent of all the learned, then to follow M. Skott his singular opinion, though the discourse be privileged. Hitherto for your refutation.  
The shutting up of this Dialogue allegeth some authorities for Not assuming bodies, none of all which make to the purpose. Peter Lombard propoundeth a double question, 
pag. 127, 128. Mag. sent, lib 2, distinct: 8.  first whether devils do substantially enter into the bodies of men: the second whether they essentially slip into their minds. To the first he answers doubtfully, but doth not deny it as these Discoursers do. To the second negatively. Then you produce the testimony of Gennadius, Beda, & Augustine: which likewise deny an essential entrance into the mind. But what is this to essential entering into the body? These are two things distinct, and if you had not purposed fraud, you would not have alleged authorities denying an essential entrance into the minds, to disprove essential entrance into the body. Touching the rest of your testimonies, I am ashamed to spend time in rehearsing them. I grant with chrysostom, the devil cannot compel to sin, but suggest: with Lyra, that he is not formally in any, as the form of that body wherein he is: with Musculus, That he hath no absolute authority, but a subjecteth servitude: with Gregory, that the power of Satan is never unjust, though his will be always w●ck●d: with T●ls●egistus, that a● human● soul cannot receau● any other to mak● one pe●s●n with i● (excepted only the son of god) than an human b●●●●. I grant you a l which the●e testimonies ●u●u●n, but what game you thereby for strengthening your cause? It is great folly to trouble your Reader with such impertinent words in the last place comes Reig: Sk●t to make all ●ure. Indeed ●is testimony is pregnant for you. 
page. 129.  But in the words you cite out of him be contained two infamous sentences, That the Diu●ls cann●t by any means make themselves seen: that to assume a bo●y for appearance, o● other service, is all one a● if the spirit leaving the ●ssence of a spirit, should become corporal. For so is the meaning of his words. And what is his reason? why (forsooth) the devil by his nature is a spirit, and therefore inv●●ible & insensible, and so this is contrary to his nature. By this reason there was never apparition of holy angels: for they be likewise spirits, invi●●ble, insensible etc. Surely they which made trees in times past to call parliaments, spoke with as great probability, as M. Skot hath affirmed this, as is apparent by that already set down.   

A Survey of the Fift Dialogue.  
The fift Dialogue treateth of Transformation, the second special of Corporal possession. As if either by assumption of bodies, or change of form, a●l corporal possession were wrought, as the nature of generals doth require to be fully comprehended in the whole sum of their specials: And as if all transformation were bodily possession, which is as untrue, as the former distribution unskilful. The conclusion propounded is, That Spirits & devils cannot essentially transform themselves into any true natural b●die. In which sentence these Discours●rs understand Transformation to be a perfect change of one ●ssence into an other, as if a spirit utterly changing his nature, & ceasing to be a spirit should be made in very essence a man, or some such other thing: or else that he not transforming him●elfe but transforming an other, should change the essence of a man into the essence of a wolf, or some like nature In which is to be n●ted a double absurdity. First that they dispute as a doubt, which never entered into any man, for an● thing I can find, to ma●e any question of to wit, wh●t h r spirit's m●ght perfectly leave their ●wn● nature, & thoroughly change th●mselu●s into an oth●● being. Indeed this were a happy Transformation for them, if they could cease to be devils, and so escape their condemnation. But neither wiseman nor fool I think, ever dreamt of such a thing. Secondly, that they confounded all apparitions a●d appearances with their transformation: as if the devil could not cast sensible shows of things before us, yea and true bodies themselves, without either transforming himself, or some other thing into them. And thus by this occasion they run into their former question again, sometimes making their Transformation to be nothing else but an assuming of bodies, either in truth, or in show. Concerning which sufficient hath been said in survey of the former dialogue: And what the spirits power is in this behalf, is apparent by the Egyptian sorcerers rods, turned (at least in show) into serpents: by the frogs, and the waters turned into blood: by the apparition of samuel's body, 
Wisd 17 Math. 14.26  by those fearful sights which troubled the Egyptians, yea by the disciples of our Saviour Christ themselves, which fearing they had seen a spirit, when they beheld our Saviour walking on the waters, declare what the judgement of the Church was then concerning apparition of spirits in sensible forms: neither doth our Saviour reprove that opinion, but only shows there was no cause of fear, he being no such as they imagined.  
Therefore I need not trouble the Reader with discussing, How the devil is transformed into an angel of light, or how Nabuchadnezzar became an ox, or in ripping up any of that discourse following, only let us consider that which is alleged from our Saviour Christ's speech, 
pag 156. 157 Luk. 24, 38.  A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have. Which words seem to make against this assuming of bodies by spirits. 
human, that is like, to man's.  For if they do take upon them sensible human bodies, how is the argument of our Saviour firm? The disciples might have replied, that howsoever spirits have not flesh and bones naturally, yet they assume human bodies for a time, visible and palpable, & therefore the judgement of sense could not be sufficient warrant to put away their fear. For answer hereunto, Thomas Aquinas & other of the School men think, our saviours argument to be of small strength, except some other addition be made unto it. But herein the schoolmen were deceived, as also many others, in that they frame the argument from part only of our saviours words, and not from the whole Our Saviour doth not (merely) reason thus, A Spirit hath not flesh and bones, But I have flesh & bones, and therefore am no spirit, as I see the argument is vulgarly taken, but more fully in this sort, A Spirit hath not flesh & bones, as you see me have, which words afford this syllogism. A Spirit hath not in a true human body pierced hands & pierced feet, as mine were lately on the cross: But I here present have in a true human body ●earced hands and pierced feet, as they were a few days since upon the cross (whereof be yourselves witnesses in seeing and feeling me) and therefore I here present am no spirit, but verily your Lord and Master, who was lately crucified.  
And this is strengthened by the words precedent to the aforesaid Scripture, and subsequent. Behold (saith Christ) my hands and my feet, for it is I myself: handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh & b●●es, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. As if the Lord had said. You suppose this body that stands thus on the sudden before you, is not mine, but the fantastical body of a spirit. But you are deceived, for it is I myself. And that you may be cut of doubt, look upon me, and handle me. A spirit hath not a true natural body, consisting of flesh, blood, and bone etc. but only the similitude of these things, and therefore this my true human body you may easily discern from such, if care and circumspection be used by you: View me therefore well, and handle me. The softness of my flesh, the hardness, of my bones, that vital and sweet warmness that is perceived in a living body, and is proper unto it, which you may feel, do witness that it is my body you do behold, and not a spirit. But certain may you be hereof, if you look upon my hands and feet, which you know (according to the scripture) were lately pierced. here I show you them. Do you not see the marks there of? and the holes which the nails have made in them? we may add hereunto the exceeding great joy which did hereupon arise in the disciples. For it followeth, And while they believed not for joy, that the Lord was risen, & wondered thereat etc. This excessive joy nothing caused somuch, as the beholding and handling of the visible and palpable marks of his piercing. Had not Christ showed & they beheld and handled these bloody marks, and certain marks of Christ's own body, they had not undoubtedly so abounded in joy, but rather continued still troubled, and in their former doubt, at least in part, and some of them, if not all. Hereby it is plain, that this scripture maketh for apparitions, and not against them.  
If the reason drawn from this scripture were of any validity against apparitions, than could not the holy angels assume bodies, neither had there ever been apparition of them, which we know is over thrown by many places of scripture.  
For the rest of the Dialogue we are beholding to Lycanthropus, which hath kept so good Decorum's in all the former Discourses, that he never howled f●●th like a wo●●e ti●● now. Your ●a●●●ty is marvelous in speedy curing his ●●●ease. If you proceed with ●●●e success in this kind, you will quickly surpass the Ex●rc●i at Ma●gn●tton. Lyca●th●●pus was but a ●o●le, that he complaine● not himself at your first meeting It seemeth he might have had present he pe. But take heed M. Ha●s●●●t be not sent from his Lord with Commission to exam ne the matter of so●e Legerdemain. And thus having run the race of this Dialogue, you make a passage to the next coming now to Actual P●ss ssion, which is the opposite member to Real. Whereby it will that neither the devil hath any real power without. For whatsoever he doth exer●is● outwardly, it is actually only saith your goodly division, and so by your account he sha●l be really no where.   

A Survey of th● sixth Dialogue.  

page 166.  The sixth Dialogue handleth Actual possession, which they describe to be an extraordinary affliction, vexation, or torment, that Satan doth effectively inflict v●on m●n f●r a time. And this actual affliction and torment very vnf●●ifully they oppose to that is generally called possession. Whereas whosoever is possessed according to that we define possession, the same i● actually, & eff●ctiu lie (as they spea●) afflicted, vexed, or tormented by Satan. Where therefore either the spirit of god in the sacred Scriptures speaking of Demoniacs mentioneth only their vexation by the spirit, 
M●th. 15. 2●. Act●●●. ●:  or any learned writer, that maketh not at all against us, or for you, as you very ●illily pretend. The question and controversy is, (whereof we have spoken already) whether the devil thus v●xing a Demoniac, be within him (definitively) as we affirm: or without him, as you avouch: and not whether Demoniacs be effectively vexed by Satan wh●ch v●xati●n you opposing to that we call p●ss ssi n, 
see pag 38 3●, & ●●3.  and by it going about to disprove real possession, do therein like unto him, that should deny a man to have a soul, because he hath a body: and that by proving he hath a body, will prove that he hath no soul. There be 2. parts of possession. 1. The devil his inherency in the body of man. 2. the devil his vexing of that body.  
This possession of diu●ls y●u acknowledging to have b●ne in the days of Christ: 
pag. 168.  do flatly deny any further continuance thereof now, in t●is time of the gospel. 
In the doctrine, pag. 27, 28. Doctrine pag 31:   
The contrary hereunto, to wit, the perpetuity of possession, I have heretofore proved by Scripture, & by reason, & namely thus.  
All the diseases that sin made the body of man subject unto, do or may remain so long as sin remaineth in man:  
But possession is a disease that sin made the body of man subject unto.  
Therefore possession doth or may remain so long as sin remaineth in man. And so at this day nay, until the end of the world.  
This argument hath as yet received no answer from you, 
pag 174,  nor I trust never shall. Instead thereof you have fathered as absurd an argument upon me, as ever I read: sending the Reader to the 31. page of the Doctrine, to secure him it is mine: and thereunto forsooth have you returned an answer. A very easy matter: even as it is for one in straits to help himself with a lie. If at once (Gentle Reader) thou wouldst see clearly as in a glass, how corruptly these men deal with my poor writings, & shamefully abuse both thee, and me, but most of all themselves then compare pages 174, 175. of their dialogical Discourses, with the 31. of the Doctrine.  
But for the further pursuit and enlarging of the aforesaid argument, we are to understand that all punishment due to the breach of god his law, is so long perpetual, as the breach of god's law doth continue. Cursed is every one which abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. 
Galat. 3: 10  This sentence is perpetually true to the end of the world. And albeit they which have put on Christ, and be dead and risen again with him, are freed from this curse, yet all that be called, be not chosen: nor every one that saith Lord, Lord, shall have him to bear their burden, but shall feel the weight of their own transgressions. Besides the faithful are not exempted from the temporal chastisement. Neither are the written plagues only the stipend of sin, but all other evils whatsoever not mentioned, are scourges prepared of the Lord for sinners. If thou wilt not keep and do all the words of this Law, the Lord will bring upon thee every sickness, 
Deut. 28.58, 61  and every plague which is not written in the book of this law. And that possession is a curse or plague of god, it needeth no proof. Yea a grievous one it is, that he which was framed the temple of the holy spirit, should become a most horrible Cave and Den of Satan. From hence it must needs follow, that possession must have a perpetual being in the world, so long as men shall continue disobedient to god his most holy commandments. Moreover, howsoever Satan's kingdom is abolished for the behalf of the elect, yet in respect of the wicked he is a god of this world, 
2 Cor. 4.4 Ephe. 2, 2: Ep●● 6, 12  a prince of the aer, & a principality, a power, a worldly governor of the darkness of this world. Doth the scriptures give him these titles as if he was a god without a people, a king without a kingdom a principality without all sway and authority in his subjects? Therefore except you can show us, that none of the wicked now a days be of satans kingdom or that he doth rule his kingdom without tyranny, or that his tyranny hath not waiting upon it possession, or that possession is now no punishment or chastisement for sin: you shall deserve that as your book goes now abroad under privilege, so hereafter yourselves should have a privilege for ever setting forth any more books.  
As the perpetuity of possession is and hath been proved by the holy scriptures, and by reason, so accordingly there have been Demoniacs from Christ's time in the successive ages until this day. That such there were for the space of 13. hundred years from Christ, appeareth by the ecclesiastical histories called the Centuaries, as witnesseth Cent. 2. pag. 110. Cent. 3. pag. 136. Cent. 4. pag. 439 440 Cent. 5. pag. 684 685. Cent. 6 pag. 341. Cent. 7. 158. 159. Cent. 8. 341. et 375. Cent. 9 265. Cent. 10. 320. et. 337. Cent. 11 286 et 310. Cent. 12. 909. 910. et 932. Cent. 13. 631. This perpetuity is further confirmed by the testimony and judgement of these writers following: who for the most part make mention of Demoniacs in their times. 
Apol. 1, Pag: 146.  justine Martyr, saith, that the christians over all the world healed very many that were p ssessed with evil spirits: which other enchanters, 
In Apolog.  conjurers, & sacrificers could n●t perform: & as yet (saith he) those m●n of ours proceed in their purpose. See also justine Martyr in Tryphone We are a customed (saith Tertullian) to assail devils & to drive them away from men. And again: We drive out ill spirits with out reward or hire. See Tertullian in lib. de Corona militis. For brevity (especially in so plain a case) I will omit the other testimonies, & only name the several writers with the book and page. Cyprian ad Demetrianun tract. 1. et Sermone d● lapsis: et de Idolorum vanitate: et lib. 4. epistolarum, epistola 7. ad Magnun. Soz●m. lib. 4. cap. 16. Idem lib. 6. cap. 28. Canon. 90 Theodoret lib. 4, cap. 21. chrysostom in Tom. 5. the i● comprehensibili dei natura, hom. 4. Augustine lib 8. de civitate dei. cap. 26, ●useb●us Caesariensis lib. 6. cap. 43. Bullinger in Math. 8.28. Pet. Martyr loc. come. Sess. 4. Cap. 9 Sect. 16: Chytreus in Math. 8.28. Hunnius in Math. 17.15. Philip Melan●thon lib. Epistolarum. Chemnicius de Sacramento Ordinis. Beza hom. 26. in historiam passionis, aedit: 2. pag. 656. V●gellius in Thesauro Theologico. pag. 980. Danaeus in Marcum quest 38. Chassanion loc. come. lib. 1. cap. 17. Piscator in Math: 8.28. But what need these testimonies specially of the ancient writers, sith the Discoursers themselves acknowledge a general consent among the learned writers, as touching the continuance of possession for about eight hundred years after Christ and that in these words. Howsoever justine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, the counsel of Brachia, 
pag: 172.  & eccles●asti●all histories do all jointly avouch the continuance of p ss ss on in those t m●s and places wherein they conversed: yet no one of them all do challenge extraordinary power to dispose Satan. But all these (say our Discoursers) were deceived, either by the cunning ●f the counterfeit, or by mistaking ●●me disease, not much unlike possession, for possession itself. Thus fell these good Fat●ers into a strange imagination of some actual possession: there being indeed no such thing at all. Is it not strange that these two petty fellows, that a●e every foot stumbling, and have as many lies almost in their mouths as they have propositions, should so boldly control these famous Doctors, and writers of Ecclesiastical story, and condemn them as men simple, deceived, and not able to discern of this matter. It seems your Privilege hath so inspired you, that the certain knowledge of these things is to be drawn only out of your breasts. Let us hear therefore the profound re●sons which these great Clerks have, against possession in these days of the gospel. 
The first argument against the perpetuity of possession: pag. 168. Ans: 1.   
The first is this G●d hath not avouched the perpetuity of possession in any part of his word, therefore it was temporary, and no way perpetual.  
Your proposition is false, For though it be not set down in express words: yet thence it is to be proved by necessary collection, as is evident by the premises. Secondly, were it true: It maketh sufficiently for the perpetuity of possession, that by holy scripture it can be proved, that sometimes there was possession, and that were possessed: except some scripture may be showed for the abolishing of it, Otherwise I say, it remaineth still, so as it either is, or may be at this day. 
pag 170. A●gu: 2.   
In the second place you reason thus. If no extraordinary power or means for expelling of devils remaineth perpetual, than neither possession itself remaineth perpetual: But the first (say you) is true, therefore the second.  
Ans: 
1. Math: 17.11 Mark: 9, 29  The proposition is false. Because there was not only an extraordinary means for the expelling of devils, which being temporary, ceased with miracles, but besides an ordinary means particularly & by name appointed for the dispossessing of devils, which remaineth until this day, and is perpetual. Yea had we no such particular ordinance, yet notwithstanding we might at this day have remedy against this extraordinary evil. Call upon me, (saith God) in the day of trouble, & I will deliver thee. Whatsoever you shall ask my father (saith our Saviour) in my name, that he will give unto you. Pray always, saith S. Paul. what? only in ordinary necessities? or else in extraordinary too, but yet without comfort of obtaining? hath the Lord bound himself from all extraordinary visitation till the end of the world? Or if any unwonted thing shall happen, is the church destitute of all remedy? Again, we have no extraordinary power remaining wherewith to cure palsies, fevers, and other diseases sometimes so cured, and yet notwithstanding the said diseases at this day remain. And why may not as well this disease be now, notwithstanding we have no extraordinary power wherewith to heal it? who would vouchsafe to spend time with such disputers? Then to come to your second proposition, let us hear your proof. Because say you extraordinary power of casting out devils was peculiarly appropriated to Christ & his own Disciples, which is a loud untruth, 
Mark 16, 17.  understanding Disciples as you do, only for the Apostles. Doth not our Lord say, These signs shall follow those that believe? in my name, they shall cast out devils etc. Of whom speaketh he this? Of his own disciples? Or of the seventy? It is most manifest he speaketh of those which should believe by their preaching. We stand not upon an extraordinary power for expelling of Satan, & therefore I might well have let this proposition pass, but that I would let you see your not extraordinary but ordinary blindness.  

pag: 176 Arg. 3:  But to let this pass, your third argument concludeth thus. Things in themselves perpetually existing, have in themselves an ordinary & continual working: But possession of devils (in these days of the gospel) is in itself neither ordinary, nor continually working, & therefore in these days there is no possession existing.  
I answer that perpetual existing is twofould: Natural, and Positive. Things natural which have an inseparable operation accompanying them, so long as they have an existing, must needs also have a continual working, as the fire must needs heat, the water moisten, etc. In this sense I do not say that possession is perpetually existing, for then evermore some should be possessed, which is far from my thought: but that men now and hereafter even to the world's end may be possessed, when and as oft as the Lord shall please in such manner (that is with this kind of correction) to chastise men: as appeareth by that here followeth. Things Positive be such as not by nature but by ordinance have their power and efficacy. Of which sort be Laws and Constitutions, which once enacted have presently existing, yet notwithstanding for want of Execution that sleepeth perhaps upon divers occasions for many years, have not their continual working Now possession being a punishment of sin, and an ordinance of God, is of the second kind, wherein if one shall exa●t one usual course to be practised every moment without ceasing, it is as much as to prescribe the Lord & appoint him when and how he shall inflict his judgements. What was to have a more perpetual existing amongst the people of t e Jews than the religion of God in those holy rites & ceremonies which himself had given from heaven? Of what were they to expect a more constant and continual succession, then of their prophets, 
Deut. 18.15.16.  the Lord having promised he would rais● them up a prophet like to Moses, in wh●se mouth he would put hi● w●rdes? yet we know what long interruption oft was made by the Idolatry of the people, the wickedness of their kings, and at the last their deserved captivity. Insomuch that the Prophet complaineth We see not our signs, there is not one Prophet m re, nor any with us that knoweth h●w long. 
psal. 74.9.  Yea from Malachy till john Baptist, what long and deep silence was the●e, as if the lords promises had been fa len to the ground? So in the Christian Church during all the reign of Antichrist, hath not the truth lain hidden in the wilderness, as if it had been utterly extinct & departed from the earth? The Papists cry out upon us to show the visible tra●t of our Church, and you would help them with armour, if this might be granted: That things perpetually existing by ordinance should also have a continual working. I hope nothing aught to be more perpetual than faith, ●et our Saviour demandeth whether at his coming h● shall find it on the earth. 
Luk. 18. ●.  The second proposition also is worthily proved. For whereas you should show that possession hath no rdinary working, ●ou tell us. It is now adays so unwonted and so ra●e ●n experience, as very hardly it is heard of in twenty y●●res space. 
pag, 17●.   
Ad●it this, I hope if it be heard of in twenty ●eares it is not a matter so strange for the days of the Gospel, as ●ou would make it. Neither is twenty years space such a discontinuance, but that you might as well conclude the Leprosy, the Cancer, the Apoplexy, & s me other rare diseases did all likewise determine with the Apostles time.  
The fourth argument followeth. The manifestation of Christ his Deity, Arg. 4: 
pa● 179 & Ans 5 5.  a ● the confirmation of his glorious gospel, were the main causes of poss ss ●n in Christ his time: these causes being c ased long since, how should th● effect itself be still continued?  
Ans, This objection I have already answered in the Doctrine pag. 30 31. 32 where I show t●at except these two were the only ●auses of p●ss ss●on notw thstanding the ceasing of these causes, p ss●ss on may remain, s● lo g as an other cause thereof remaineth, to wit, sin. That these were n●t the sole causes, you you selves d●●i esse confess, in calling them the main● causes, and the ma●n● e●●s ●f p●ss ss●on: & in affirming, that th● p●ss ssion of devils were especially for th●se two ends. Indeed in your Answer page 67. (contradicting yourselves) you say these were the two only ends of ●oss ss o●. But how prove you that b● the Scriptures? Or who made ●ou of counsel with the Lord, that you do so peremptorily and precisely put down these for the s●le causes of this judgement? It is not possible t●at this which you thus presumptuously affirm, Doctrine 
pag 31. 32:  should be true. Sith (as heretofore I have declared) there were possessions before either the gospel was preached unto the Gentiles, or the Lord manifested in the flesh. Moreover t●e sine of Demoniacs, without which they could never have been vexed by ●athan, was a cause of possession, how then were the two aforesaid, the only causes of possession? To the former of these reasons you answer, there were no p●ss ssions at all (for a y l ng time espec ally before the coming of Chr●st. Ans. 
pag 68  A childish answer, singing in m● said reason I have made the contrary evident. Instead of answering m● latter reason we have a slander. You charge me to say, Ans. 
pag: 56  that ●oss ss● n was especially and purposely inflicted upon men f●r sin▪ and this l●●●●f ●our own making you lab●r to overthrow. Whereas I onel● a firm that besides the aforesaid causes, sin wa● a cause, 
doctrine Pag 32  w●ich is th' c●us● of all judgements, th' u●● 〈◊〉 alwa●e● respect not tha● 
* ●e●t after his own glory. page 179, joh. 12.31.  principally bu● s● t●mes some 〈…〉 best kn●w 〈◊〉 to his ●●.  
But chiefly you ground ●he final determination log since o Satan's power of p ss ssion, upon a blind ●nde●stādig of these words of t●e Gospel. Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince o● this world be cast out Concerning which when I consider how many vain wor●s & leaves be spent, I call to mind the great pains the Smith taketh in framing his Idolatrous Image How he works in the coals, and fashion, th●t with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his a●mes: 
Isa: 44: 12.  yet he is an hungered, & his strength faileth, he drinketh no water, & ●s fame▪ For these Disc●ursers having framed an Idol interpretation in their own brains, weary themselves to adorn it all that ever they may, though when they have done what they can it is nothing else but an abominable frenzy, I give it no ha●●er term t●en it deserves. For to come to the matter, ●hese not Ex●●anours but Prophanours of God his truth would have the casting forth of the Prince of this world by the death of Christ, to be nothing else but a final determination of Satan's actual possession, that is, That the benefit of Christ his death should only pertain to Demoniacs, men extraordinarily tormented with the devil. For the fruit of deliverance from Actua l possession belonging only to such kind of men But by these men's divinity, The casting forth ●f the Prince of this world, is nothing else but a del veranc from actual possession, & so this benefit of Christ his death shall be appropriated to men extraordinarily vexed by Satan. Are ●our consciences so seated that ●ou could be content to spoil Christians of their chiefest comfort? But I need not spend time in expostulating with you There is n●ne which loves the truth, but of himself will easily acknowledge what such depravours deserve. It shall be enough for me, lest any be deceived by you, ●o convince your falsehood Our Saviour showeth by his own express words, that the casting forth of the Pri c● of this world, should be the drawing of all nations unto him for so he speaketh in the next verse. And I, i● I wer● lift up from the earth, 
ver: 3 2:  will d awe all men unto me: which I hope is a more ample fruit of Satan's expulsion, then can be restrained only to men in unwonted manner afflicted by him. Likewise the Grecians ●s d si●e to s e●ur Saviour, which occasion did move this speech, doth manifestly declare th' calling fo●th o● Satan should ●e the admitting of the Gentiles into the kingdoms of G●●. This also was that which the voice from heaven pronounced, wherein the nam of God should h● glorified, and not the deliverance of ●me few special men, from this one part of ●athans t●rannie. Besides our Saviou here kelleth us that a ●ession and a most solemn judgement should be holden, where in the might● jehovah s●●ts Iu●ge jesus Christ is plaintiefe and Satan defendant. ●al●●e think all this solemnity ha● no other e●de but only that Actual possession might b● condemned? Or rather that the Almighty God judging the cause between his Elect and Satan, did now in regard of his Son his merit fully satisfying his justice, give sentence against Satan with his chosen, and thereby expel him from that kingdom which heretofore he had generally holden, that in all nations by the preaching of the word, children might be begotten to the Lord. This were sufficient to control your wicked error, yet because the matter is weighty, we will consider a place or two more. S. Paul to the Collossia●s explaineth this p●int most fully. 
chap: 2: 13  And ye (saith he which were dead in sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, forgiving you all your trespass●●, & putting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, etc. And hath spoiled the and p were, and hath made a show of them openly, & hath triumphed ou r them in the same cr●ss●. In which words, he doth as it were comment upon this speech of our Saviour declaring How Satan is cast forth: what is the benefit, and to whom it belongeth. The manner of Sathan● casting so th' is, by satisfying the justice of god, signified by cancellis g th● hand writing, & by spoiling principalities & pours etc. Is the handw●iting● canceled only for Demoniacs? That benefit is A quickening together with jesus Christ and the forgiveness of all trespass s. Are the sins of demoniacs only forgiven, and they only quickened? Nay many which are dispossessed a●e not quickened with Chri●t, not have their trespass forgiven, but being empty, swept, and garnished, are repossessed with seven worse devils than they were at the first. Except perhaps the sentence was only terrible in the time of our Saviour, but now after his death is no more to be feared, possession by your wise interpretation being fully determined. To whom this benefit belongeth, are they which were dead in sins, & in the uncircumcision of the flesh. Are only Demoniacs such? Is not this the estate of all the Elect before they be called? Thus much S Paul. In the Epistle to the Hebrews likewise the same is most plain, where it is affirmed, 
Heb, 2, 14: 15  that Christ took human nature upon him, that in the same he might destroy through death, him that ●ad the power of death, that is the devil And that he might delever all them which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage where also it is plain how Satan was thrown out, and that the fruit redownds to all that were oppressed with fear of death, which number is infinite, besides Demoniacs. Where it is to be observed, how these Discoursers alleging this text, ever when they come to the fifteenth verse, which they s●e doth utterly overthrow them, shrink back again, not daring to touch it, as if some scorpion lay under this stone. which makes me think, they do not so much ignorantly, as of purpose pervert the scripture. But let us (by the way) see how they do urge this Scripture to their purpose. This word destruction (say you) cannot fitly be applied to Satan his power of obsession, 
pag, 185.  but must necessarily be appropriated to his power of possession, which was not only much maimed, but utterly destroyed by the death of our Saviour, so as non can be possessed now in these days of the gospel. If this here said of the devil is to be appropriated to the power of possession, them hath Christ destroyed the devil only for Demoniacs. By this your interpretation also of the word destroy, none can now do the works of the devil, none can at this day lie, slander, commit murder, whoredom etc. For 1. joh. 3.8. it is said that Christ hath appeared to destroy the works of the devil, and thus you yourselves translate the word. Briefly none of the regenerate can sin, 
pag 186. Rom: 6, 6,  sith it is said the old man (of such) is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed. But to return thither whence I have digressed.  
Lastly from the interpretation which you do give of joh. 12.31. it must necessarily follow, which you also boldly deliver for truth, that by Christ the power of possession was finally determined, & utterly annihillated, that an end was made of this business. And again, that our Saviour Christ put a final end to the possession of devils by his death and resurrection. Now how can this possibly be true, Ans. 
pag, 66:  sith after Christ his death and resurrection many were possessed with devils, as is plain by the Acts of the Apostles? Besides after our Lord was risen, he foretells that some believers should in his name cast out devils. Hereunto you answering, 
Mark: 16: 17. page: 197:  grant that there were indeed possessions & dispossessions, a time (that is a little time) after Christ his death & resurrection, for confirmation of his glorious gospel, but none at all for the declaration of Christ his Deity. But how is it proved? why M. Deacon and M. Walker say it. That we may plainly see that this is an absurd shift, we must remember that the miracles wrought by the Apostles or others as well after as before Christ's death, served for confirmation of Christ his Deity. First in that Christ is the subject or matter of the gospel. That therefore which maketh for the confirmation of the truth of the gospel, (which the miracles wrought by the Apostles after Christ's death did, by their own confession) must needs make for confirmation of this Christ, that he is the true Messiah, and Saviour of the world. And if of Christ, then both of his Deity and humanity. For Christ is a person consisting of these two natures. Again, the gospel teacheth the Deity of Christ, whatsoever miracles then confirm the gospel, the same confirm Christ's Deity. Moreover, the miracles, & namely the dispossessions of the Apostles, or of any other wrought after Christ's resurrection, were wrought in the name of Christ, a●d therefore confirmed Christ his Deity. 
Mark. 16.17  In my name (saith Christ) they shall cast out devils. And this they should do after his resurrection. I command thee (saith Paul) in the name of jesus Christ, 
Acts: 16: 18:  that thou come out of her, & he came out. Tell me now ye Discours●rs, whether this dispossession of S. Paul and such like dispossessions, 
Acts 8.7. & 19.23,  performed after Christ his resurrection, whereof we read in the Acts, made not for the confirmation of Christ his deity. Behold the palpable darkness that hath covered you: which notwithstanding you ●eele not, nor in respect thereo● keep yourselves still and quiet without stirring in your places, as the Egyptians did: but you strut it out, and wa●k b●l●lie, as in the clearest sun shine, by so much more miserable than the egyptians were But if you will be so hardy, you must thank yourselves, if you break your shins, for you can hardly break your faces, and it may be this doth make you so venturous.  

pag 182  You prosecute your absurd interpretation of I●hn 12. further by conference of some scriptures, which either you do not, or will not understand; by a Resolution making little to the purpose, and lastly by the testimonies of divers: wherein you have a notable grace, to abuse men's names and words contrary to their meanings. Bring one approved author i● you can, that restraineth the casting out of the Prince of the world, to the deliverance of demoniackes, and to the ending or final determination of possession: which if you cannot, what a shame is it, or rather a wickedness not to be borne, to foist in the names of good Authors, and some scattered patches of sentences sounding contrary to their judgements, to deceive the simple, and to draw them into error? Are you men appointed to be leaders of the blind, and do you willingly dig pits for them? The Lord deliver his people from such pastors which stop their mouths with gravel instead of bread, and kill them with the poison of their own erroneous conceits, instead of feeding them with the wholesome food of God his truth. My purpose is not to enter any particular examination of your allegations. For even as one when he was enjoined to carry away a dunghill, after he considered how huge and foul it was, never put to his shoulders, but opened a passage to a river not far of, by the flowing whereof he swept it away: So I, when I perceive how wearisome and unprofitable it would be to ransack to the bottom this heap of trumpery, think it better, rather than to remove all this baggage, instead of water to put her to it, which happily might make some speedy riddance or such stuff●●nd thus much for this Dialogue.   

A Survey of the seventh Dialogue.  
In this Dialogue of common experience, Whether Actual Possession of Spirits may b● or no, I expected some proole that the possessions mentioned by Tertullian, Cyprian, chrysostom, and so till our own times, were all but counterfeit, and therefore no reason to think any other of Summers at Nottingham. But as apothecary's boxes carry titles of Aloes, Styrax, Benjoin, and within have nothing but black lead, copporas, Ockar, and such trash: so here we have a title of common experienc●, without any experience at all, not any one approved example once sifted and convicted. Yet to examine such as you bring: First you will prove Actual Possession cannot be, because as great or greater works are done by nature, Art, 
page: 202.  & Sickness. Surely this cannon makes a foul battery, not only overthrowing this possession at N●ttingham, but all other elsewhere in the world, yea those that are mentioned in the scripture. It behooves us therefore to fortify what we can against so dangerous a shot, or else all is like to go to ruin. What then are the works of nature? divers are reckoned out of Pliny, Strabo, and others, whereby you would conclude, that if the boy at Ma●gnitton had breathed out flames of fire, it had been no work of actual possession, because Aetna doth so: If he had been able to draw iron unto him, in somuch that if yourselves had come in place, because your faces are of this metal you should have sowled foreheads with him: yet this had been no wonder, because the Magnes doth so: If by his embracing one A. Walk●r he should so violently have detained him, that he could not possibly make one step forward towards Ireland, this had been no marvel at all, because the little fish Ech●cis is able to stay a ship of great burden never so fleet under sail. Why, you Discoursers, things are not marvelous, except to the ignorant, when they work according to kind: but when they go beyond their natural ability, though the actions be not comparable to others in nature, they are wonderful. It is no strange thing for the Sun to lighten the whole opposite face of the earth, and yet if Moses face shine, the people are afraid. 
page 205: Aug 〈◊〉 ●●ui. 〈◊〉 24, ca ●3  You remember out of Augustine other works of nature very strange done by men. But what of them I pray you? Were Somers actions also natural? Natural actions show themselves from the cradle, to the grave: whereas Somers before the time of his first vexation by Satan could never do any of them. But you will say, that which is done naturally by one, by art and practice may be done by an other. It would be hard for you to prove that those works which Augustine mentioneth, could be imitated by any art. though I confess strange things may be done by cozening and practice, 
Euseb: de pr. evang. lib. 4: caP: 1 Chry. ad popul: Antioch. hom: 20  as Eusebius and chrysostom do both teach: notwithstanding they both acknowledge Actual possession, which easily may be discerned from artificial workings. for in these be teachers, long exercise, some end of glory or gain, with divers other circumstances, whereas the possessed respect neither profit nor credit, but fall into strange passions in a moment without schoolmasters, or any former exercise. The pharisees were wiser than to use this silly shift to discredit our Saviour his miracles by: which was ready at hand, if it had been of any force. Further say you, stanger actions often arise from mere natural diseases. 
pag, 206.  It is true, but because you show not these things in Somers to have proceeded from natural disease, you abuse your Reader with idle words. It might be apparent to you they came not from disease, for that he was delivered from his vexation in a moment, without any ordinary means of physic, as likewise Darling of Burton was, and the seven in Lancashire. Moreover, if their strange effects came from some natural disease, than did they not counterfeit. If they counterfeited, then had they no disease, but were in good health I trust. Reconcile thes together I pray you: and if you will contend still for counterfeiting, give over your prating of natural diseases for shame.  
Secondly you reason from the natural power of the Devil, that he cannot effect such things as are reported to be done by Somers, & therefore there was no actual possession. And wherefore could he not effect such things? 
page, 208,  Because say you the devil cannot do works unpossible in nature. here we must demand of you what you mean by works impossible in nature: whether impossible to the nature of a devil, and nature generally, or impossible to the nature of the man, in whom he worketh. In the former sense, we know the Devil hath a restraint: 
Mark 5, 4  in the second, he may enable a man to break chains, which by his own natural strength he cannot possibly do, & that is as unpossible to be done by man, as any of the things we report by Somers. Now whether of these two meanings do you follow? forsooth both: In the Mayor the first, and in the Minor the second. Therefore I answer you, because you shoot in a bow with two strings, I will stand out of your way, as most perilous archers, able to kill the man in the moon. Again, say you, in all sound Divinity there is an impossibility of such actio●s, b●cause the Devil is no Creat●r of substances, no transformer of natures, no worker of miracles. If you would have distinguished your terms, and then have spent some words to make plain, that in these actions there was such a creation, such a transformation, such a miraculous working, as could not be incident to the power of the devil, I would have shaped you an answer if I could: but because you make a confused noise, as if you were ringing of bees, you shall swarm them upon what bough you will for all me. Nay but say you, if the devil did such things once; 
page 209.  he can d●e them again. It may be he can, and would too, if he were at any man's command like an ape to show tricks. It may be also that sometimes he doth them, though all the world hear not thereof. That which you bring of his being too weak an Agent, 
pag: 210  for that he is not Omnipotent, as if an Omnipotency were required in these actions, is miserable beggary, still craving that which will not be granted you. If you will not be answered, you would like importunate beggars be set in the stocks. 
pag: 211  Touching the aptness you deny to be in the young man at Mahgnitton to those supernatural actions, I answer, There is little aptness in a stone, or in a man to fly aloft in the ●er, yet violence doth make them do that, unto which they be not naturally fit. But what are those actions which could not and have not been wrought by spirits in men's bodies? Have you forgotten how you would make us believe, that greater works than any was done in Somers, are usually done by nature, by art, by sickness? Are men's bodies not capable of such works of Satan, as practise, disease, or nature effecteth in them? For your application of matter & form we have spoken sufficiently in the question of assuming bodies. Surely your faculty in logic is exceeding great, which contrary to the judgement of sense in proper objects, and other things requisite rightly disposed, will force reason to a Non plus. O that you had lived in those days, when they disputed whether Snow is white. No doubt by your good help the Academics had prevailed, 
pag, 211. & 212.  whatsoever sense saith. But still you urge the matter further by Divinity, Philosophy, Physic, Law, Conscience. If Divinity the Mistress condemn these actions, you might well have spared the other five her handmaids. But you are like new wine tunned up in vessels, you must either vent, or burst. What then saith Divinity? working of miracles is ceased long since: But the things wrought in Somers by the devil were miracles, or else you say untruly. If you be such unreasonable beggars, that no answer will serve you, you would be cudgeled from the door. For the handmaids I will not talk with them: their Mistress hath received answer for all. Lastly to avoid needless speech, I will not grant you, neither shall you ever be able to wring from me, That devils can bring to pass such things at their pleasure, o● if they wrought these actions in Somers, 
page, 213,  that therefore they can stop the ordinary course of all other natural actions, and ordinances appointed by God. You were sick of a fever, when you tied these consequences together. The devils power is a limited power. He can not touch one hair of our heads further than his commission serveth him. Thus much for the devils power.  

page: 214.  Thirdly you reason from the distribution of actions, & causes of right judgement. If (say you) these actions in Somers were true actions, than were they either natural, or not natural: and then either against nature, or besides nature, or above nature, to be discerned also by some rule of truth, which either nature affordeth (by inbred principles Theorical, & practical, or got by experience of sense, of History, of Induction, or of our own Trial) or else at least is supernaturally given us: but none of all these were to be seen in Summer's actions, and therefore no true actions. I answer, there was to be seen in him Actions against nature, as when he went about to hang himself, though you fond imagine it was no such action, because it was not effected: there were actions in him besides nature, when his face and mouth were monstrously distorted, one lip toward one ear, and the other towards the other: there were actions above nature, in his strength, in his knowledge, in his sundry passions, as of a lump about as big as an egg moving along his leg, belly, throat, and other parts so that this portion of your proof is patched up altogether with untruths. Now for your rule of judgement, 
pag 21●.  you affirm, these actions of Somers couldnot be judged by any Theorical and Practical principles. Your reason is, because Theorical and Practical principles be only natural, and Summer's actions were supernatural. Surely this might be the reason also of mere Naturals. As if Rectum is not judex sui et obliqui. If natural principles judge what is according to nature, the same principles shall also judge what is above nature. Do you think heathen Philosophers were not able to discern what work was supernatural? Was Aristotle a fool in writing metaphysics? But what of Experience? It is not universal (say you) because divers amongst you wher● the thing was done, 
page, 2●0.  did not acknowledge such experimented trials of an actual possession. Indeed the pharisees if it could have been brought to pass, by no means would have had the blind man's eyes opened by our Saviour Christ. And in Nottingham it was apparent that Papism, profane life, & anger for having some of their friends touched, caused some to oppose themselves. Then for the several degrees of experience, It could not (say you) be determined by sense, because the obiests of sense were deceivable. I answer, you say untruly: The objects of sense were true objects. For sense apprehendeth but the outward appearance, which semblance is true, though the inward substance be not that, which outward likeness showeth to be. Hath not the Lord set his bow in the clouds, though it be but an appearance only to sense through the repercussion of the sun beams, in a subject fitly disposed, and that there is no such thing existing really indeed. Do not spirits appear to men, though the bodies they seem to have, oft be no true bodies, but only carry the similitude and image of them? your other parts of experience be idle, for History and Induction could have no place in one present Individuum, and Trial which consisteth in proof of action, might happily be in Somers himself, but not in the beholders. These actions than have store of natural proof, howsoever your eyes dimmed through envy or covetousness and desire of preferment, cannot behold it.  
After you come to your Supernatural rule, from whence you would conclude, There is at this day no actual possession, 
page. 223. Acts: 20.27.  because S. Paul having showed the Ephesians the whole counsel of God, gives neither Canon nor Counsel of Actual Possessions. It is untrue that you say. For as in visiting of the sick, and divers other such christian duties, there is nothing expressly set down, but is only to be gathered by implication & sound deduction, so likewise in this of possession: Concerning which he hath generally admonished us, 
Ephe. 6: 11  To put on the whole armour of God. In which words be comprehendeth all vexation of Satan whatsoever, and showeth also in the words following the remedy. Except you can make good unto us, that possession is none of the Engines to overthrow man withal. Whereas you require some precept of this matter to Timotheus & Titus, you are to understand that the ordinary gift is not peculiar to the Minister, but common to all believers. And therefore no marvel if there be no special precept of this, more than of visiting the sick, redeeming captives, relieving decayed persons, and such like: in which duties all Christians have interest, and not only the Ministers. Again you say, that if perpetuity of Actual possession be either expressly, or implicatively contained in the word, than also the miraculrous faith is either expressly or implicatively contained in the word: 
page, 225:  which is stark false, as you and your fellows have been told an hundred times, considering miraculous faith is not necessarily required for dispossession, as (God willing) shall be showed more at ●arge in the ninth dialogue. Thus then have these men reasoned against experience, and have afforded us three general arguments to disprove all Possessions by, & as well all as that of Nottingham.  
But seeing they have talked to no purpose of Experience, I will in one word commend to the Christian Reader these Experiences following, 
doctrine pag 28. Inter Ep. Cypria. Ep: 75  besides those mentioned in the Doctrine, for his better satisfaction in this point. And first of the possessed woman of whom Firmitianus doth treat at large in his Epistle to Cyprian: an example out of the compass of that time, wherewith these Discoursers would bond all Actual possession. But what nee●e I stand upon former times? If possession be apparent in these our days, it must needs be that neither hath it ceased in ages past. To come then to our own times, & with one bush to stop two gapp●▪ Examples we have In our own country, aa in Margaret H rrison of Burnham Vlpe within the county of Norfolk, in Kath. Wright, in M. throckmorton's children Th. Darling of Burton, the ●eauen in Lancashire, I●ne I●rden the servant of Simon Fox of Shadbrook in Suffolk, whose cause was heard before the Right Ho: the L. Chief justice of England at S. Edmonde bury the 12. of july 1599 joane Nayler as was proved before the Right Ho: the L. Anderson Novem. 30 the same year. Susan B●yton of Saffron Walden in Essex, as is plain by the evidence given against Alice Bentley at the Quarter Sessions holden at the aforesaid Walden the 13. day of April 1602. which Susan was lately dispossessed, the means being ved which God hath to that end appointed. Also in Tho. Harison of North Wych in Ches shire, & in Clemens Charles a maid of Woolroytch commonly called Wullage in Kent: both which be at this present very grievously vexed by Satan, so as he that will may be an eye witness thereof. 
Gallobelg. lib: 11:  Out of our own country, as at Spandaw a town six miles from Brandenburg in Germany in the ●eare (as I take it) 1594. the devil did walk visibly, and possessed more than twenty men, vexing them in miserable sort. Yea he scattered in the public streets money, boxes, gold & silver buttons, and such like: and he that gathered any of these things was presently vexed by the devil. Whereupon it was forbidden both in the schools & churches, that none should take up any such scattered things. The like were done by wicked spirits at Berlin in the same Marqueship of Brandenburg: And at Fridberge a town of the new Marchia, there were more than an hundredth and fifty men, of either lex, condition, & age, which were possessed with wicked spirits. These things are testified by D. james Coler Provost in Berlin, and M. Robert Coler, and M. james Pret●r Pastors of the Church in Spandavia. To whose Narration Balthasar Westphalus, and john Muller Consuls of Spandaw have subscribed. 
de Abdit: ●er: cause. lib: 2 ca 16:  john Fernelius aman worthy to be credited for his famous learning, place, and deserved authority, throughout all Christendom: reporteth of two possessed, one taken in the night, when as by occasion of immoderate thirst he rising out of his sleep, and finding no drink, bit of an apple that he hit on by chance, wherewith presently he perceived his jaws to be shut, & as it were strangled with one's hand, & with all, he being now possessed of a devil entering into him, did seem to behold himself in the dark to be devoured by a mighty black dog which things saith he, afterwards when he was restored to his perfect mind, he reported to us in order. The other was a Knight his son, taken in such sort, that sometimes his left arm, sometimes his right, sometimes one finger, one whiles one thigh, one otherwhile both, sometimes the whole body was grievously vexed: which torment passed with so great swiftness, & shaked him so vehement ●, that hardly four servants could hold him in his bed. The most skilful physicians judged it a convulsion, having next affinity with the Epileps●, and so accordingly directed their practice, but without an● success at all. The reason was (saith he) for that we were all deceived in the true judgement of the Cause. For in the third month a wicked spirit was found to be the author of all the evil, bewraying himself by a voice, and unwonted words & sentences both Latin and Greek, although the sick party was ignorant of the Greek tongue. He discovered many secrets of them that sat b●, and especially of the Physicians, laughing that he had deceived them in a matter of so great peril, and that they had almost killed that poor body with their unprofitable medicines. These examples alleged give us evident proof of possessions in these days. Now let the Reader choose whether he will believe these testimonies and experiences, or the unsavoury and unlearned disputations of these Discoursers.  

pag: 22. ●.  Hitherto of Possession, now they turn themselves to Obsession, unskilfully opposed, as hath been partly showed, to Possession. For they which treat of these matters use these words indifferently. Cyprian saith, And by the torments of words they are cast forth of Obsessed bodies. So Fernelius in the place before cited, And withal he being now obsessed by the devil entering into him. 
Cyprr. ad Demetri. De oper. lib. 4. cap. 10.  Likewise Zanchius (as before we hear) speaking of devils substantially entering into bodies, calls it by the name of being Obsessed by devils. And indeed Obsidere doth not only signify to besiege, and to compass about, but also Tene●e, Occupare, Opprimere, to Hold, Possess, & Oppress●, as when Tully saith, Cum is qui audit ab Oratore jam obsessus est ac tenetur: When the bearer is now possessed and held by the Orator. And it seemeth that writers rather use the word Obsessed then Possessed partly for comfort of the afflicted, teaching them they are not absolutely in the devils power, howsoever he thus furiously rageth in their bodies, but rather that he now seeketh to vanquish them, then that without all hope they be vanquished already: partly also for the better sound. These Discoursers in a private understanding make Obsession nothing else but an outward assault of Satan, which only power they leave unto him now. And where it is objected, This doth open a door to Athiesme, they return this imputation very wisely upon the doctrine of possession: as if to teach both inward and outward vexation were a doctrine of more security, then theirs of outward temptation only. It had wont to be an old said saw in Geomitry, the part is l●sse than the whole: but these men will refine all Arts, & teach us a new, That the part is more than the whole. And so let this memorable Axiom shut up this dialogue.   

A Survey of the Eight Dialogue.  
Having bewrayed your great ignorance concerning the power of Satan, you come to talk how this power is to be subdued: wherein you show yourselves as blind, if not also obstinate and perverse, as you have in that already passed. Much lavish speech is in the beginning, wherewith I will neither trouble myself, nor the Reader. Only we may note by the way, 
page 234.  how untruly you require for the subduing of astuall possession an extraordinary power: concerning which we shall see in that which followeth. Then you fling out, as your custom is, against the work at Nottingham, because (say you) Crying aloud, rending sore, 
page, 24●.  & leaving as dead be made undoubted true signs of that dispossession: whereas the same things are seen in Mania, (and sometimes a Mania without them as in yourselves) in Frenzies, in the Mother, in Convulsions etc. I answer, I neither make these the only, nor the necessary signs of dispossession: for I know divers have been wrought without them: but I frame my reason thus. Where these signs be, & a present deliverance doth follow from those & former vexations by Satan, upon the request of God his people, that there is a disposs ssion. I confess these signs particularly may be in divers diseases, but they are not from the devil: neither is there a present restoring of the parties diseased in natural sickness upon the using of earnest prayer.  
Those means for dispossession which you stand upon, 
pag, 244 et●.  I allow not. They be not Rings, roots, nor Herbs, that be of any avail in this work. Neither do we urge the fishes liver nor David's harp, nor the music wherewith Elishas' spirit was calmed: and therefore all this as superfluous talk, nothing pertaining to this cause I omit. But we cleave only to God his own ordinance of prayer, helped forward by the Exercise of fasting, which according to his gracious promise & mercy we have proved to be effectual. Against which, before you encounter with your full strength, you sport yourselves with a profane scoffing in the end of this dialogue. 
in page, 26●.  And first, you will needs wring from me whether I will or no, that the work done at Nottingham, was done only by fasting. You are able to wring Hercules his club out of his fist. You have proved yourselves such exceeding sharp Logicians in the former Discourses, that I stand in great fear of you: yet now I must endure the brunt of it, come what wil Go to then, bring forth your wringer. This then is it, That which made the prayer more forcible, & the spirit more apt, 
pag 257. 258  was the only efficient cause of the supposed action: But your fasting made your prayer more forcible etc. & therefore was the efficient cause of the action. This is a wringer indeed. If Cardane were alive he would register this Practical theorem in the book of his Subtiltyes. What a profit would this proposition well understood, bring to many artificers? It would ease them of great expense in providing many tools. The Carpenter might spare his axe and chisels, and go to fell timber, square logs, and do his other works with his only whetstone. For that which makes the axe and chisel more forcible is the only efficient of the work. And so by this unanswerable reason I am made a Montanist, a Papist, 
pag, 257: & ●  & one that makes fasting a sufficient means in itself, for suppressing of all suggested actual sins whatsoever: which opinion though I am far from, yet if you will follow my counsel M. Deacon, for some things that I know, you should fast more than you do. 
page 259,  Again you are instant to know, If prayer be a means, in what order of means I would place it. Not in that sure which you foolishly fancy to yourselves, For what child would esteem of prayer as a mere natural action? 
page, 260  But this is suitable to your other blind ignorances. Further you argue, that prayer can be no means, whether we respect the Sound, the Voice, or the words: wherein you show yourselves no less void of piety, than you have been hither to of wit and learning. Can you not be content to reproach me, but you must needs open your mouths against the holy worship of God? Can you find no other causes wherefore prayer should be effectual, but only for a noise that is made, or for some distinct voice, or else for certain charming words? In which of these respects consists the power of ordinary prayer? you must needs answer, It consisteth in none of them: Conclude then, that ordinary prayer is but lip labour. Your audatiousnes is in tolerable: In this 260. page you carry yourselves more like Atheists, than Preachers. It is a shane your book was not better examined before it was allowed to the press. But thus having brandished your sword about your ears, you make an end of this foolish talk, and prepare yourselves to other as good.   

A Survey of the Ninth Dialogue.  
This Dialogue aims at two points, That Prayer & fasting be not established by Christ, 
pag: 263  as a perpetual ordinary means for powerful expelling of devils: That justifying faith apprehending some supernatural power of God, doth not effect that work. For the first, the Reader must take heed, he understand not prayer and fasting, as I mean it, and we all usually do, for an effectual ordinance of God to quicken faith by, which is our only apprehender of God his mercies, in these and all other actions, but for a bare and mere naked performance of these works of Fasting & Prayer: For so these Trifelers expound themselves, 
page: 292.  some fifteen leaves after.  
Which disputation might have had some use against Papists, that maintain their Opus operatum, an efficacy of the work done, for the only works sake: but in what stead can it serve against me? It may be they intended it against Papists, these Discoursers propounding to themselves the general doctrine of Spirits: but neither do their arguments press them at all, & besides they apply their who●e cou●●e of speech against that done at Nottingham. So then they dispute against me in word, but not indeed, thereby labouring to deceive the Reader, not able, as they thought, to di tinguish between these two. If you had meant plainly, you would have showed in what sense you had dealt in this place: but it was shameful to express it, for so you should have appeared to all worthy to be hissed at. And therefore you deferred your explication till some thirty pages after, where no man would look for it, that in the mean sea son you might seem to be talking, and yet at last have a running knot on your juggling stick to pray fast and loo●e with at your pleasure. Should any man bestow time against persons of such perverse trade, that are corrupted in their minds, 
1 Tim. 6.5  and are deprived of the truth? I assure thee good Reader, every line seems a page unto me, yet lest thou shouldst be deceived by these Hu●sters dealing, I put myself to these pains. Well then to com● to the first point, If you can say any thing, wherefore fasting a d prayer accompanied with ●r●e t stifying faith is not a perpetual means ordained by Christ for expelling ●f devils let us hear what it is.  
There is no commandment (ay you) or cannon any where exstant in all the Scriptures for t●e approbation of it. 
page. 264.   
Because it seems you have been seeking and can find none, I will show you some. Our Saviour teaching us to pray, And lead v● n●t into temptation but deliver us from evil, doth therein teach us to pray against actual possession. It was an evil you confess, where with many in his time and after were troubled. Neither may we think the form given by our saviour, is any thing defective, as if some part of our necessity were omitted. If then prayer be a means to defend and preserve from actual possession, it is also a means to deliver from the ●ame, if at any time we be overtaken with it.  
And seeing also possession is still remaining in the church, as hath been proved b● unanswerable arguments, it must needs be also, the remedy of prayer is still remaining, and warranted from hence. Again, 
Math. 17.21.  This k●nde goeth ●ot forth (saith he) but by fasting and prayer To this place you answer, That our Saviour only makes known the impediment in that action, but puts down no commandment. 
pag. 264:  And here you condemn me of gross ignorance that could not see this. I contrariwise admire your superabundant skill, that is able to make two things justle out one an other without any opposition. I pray your great learning teach me (for of myself I can not conceive) How the presence of that thing should not be a means, an help, a furtherance, the absence whereof is a let, an hindrance, an impediment. Or how a defect can be reproved, but that a supply of the same defect should withal be commanded. And how an evil can be perpetual, as I have showed actual possession is, & that the remedy should not also be perpetual, considering the Lord is mor ample in mercy towards us, then in justice. Besides, if neither we are to have an● use of fasting and prayer in the●e actions, nor the Apostles ever vse● them in casting out devils (at least we never read that they did) how might the Church reap profit of this instruction? Did our Saviour give precepts, that were vain and superfluous? Or was this instruction proper to that one a●tion and never to come in use afterwards; I beseech you make not dainty of your skill, but lighten my ignorance in these points.  

page 265  Moreover, whereas you require some testimony for this ordinance in Paul his epistles, and for want of such do thereupon conclude that there is no such ordinance. I answer, it is not necessary we should prove this ordinance out of the epistles of S. Paul. May not warrant for it out of the gospel suffice? And cannons & rules thence for our direction therein? If you can prove that all the ordinances of God whatsoever, be contained in Paul's epistles: I will either from thence prove this ordinance, or confess that there is no such ordinance. Yet notwithstanding know ye, that where the Apostle speaking of the complete armour of Christians against the devil, requireth that we pray with all manner of prayer and supplication in the spirit, 
Ephe. 6: 18.  that from thence this ordinance hath confirmation. Let this then be a third place. And where you add that the Apostle in the epistles to Timothy and Titus handles at large all Church offices and officers, I have already showed that expelling of devils is no peculiar duty of any Church officer: and therefore you have no reason to look for this precept amongst the advertisements of their charge.  
Again you object S. Peter that laying op●n the perpetual vagaries of Satan to kill & devour, he maketh n● mention of prayer & fasting, but only of a strong faith. I answer, The reason of this was, because S. Peter was not aware of that variance between faith & prayer, which your Eagle eyes have espied: who as it seemeth can have a faith without prayer, and prayer without faith. He thought simply as he had learned, that where ●e spoke of faith, men would also have understood all the helps and furtherances of faith, & not by the name of faith destroy whatsoever might give maintenance to it. But because you stand so strictly upon the word prayer, take this for a fourth place, Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Shall we think that possession is no affliction? 
james 5, 13  Or that in this affliction only we are barred from prayer? Or if we do pray, that it shall be to no effect. Now than you may see, that you casting your net, and for all your dragging finding nothing in all the canonical scripture for this ordinance, it was not for want of store, whereof I have given you but a taste that you drew up empty to land, but because you had so man● floters in the top, and wanted lead to sink it a convenient depth.  
Whereas therefore you challenge me for proofs of this institution, these places may suffice for authority of scriptures. And might not those testimonies of antiquity, and of present practice with the godly now a●aies content you, which I have alleged in the Doctrine, but that you must blazon me for a Braver in words, 
page, 265,  which neither had brought any thing to purpose, nor possibly could bring Say you● w● wonder y●u blush not to brave out the matter, by pretending the authority of Scriptures, the testimony of father's old and n●w, the practice of the church, and the good success thereof, to manage the matter it self. I beesech thee good Reader let me by thy patience remember some part of that already set down in the Doctrine, 
page: 55.  whereby thou mayst better behold these men's unhonest dealings, and whether I merely pretend these things as they tell thee. First therefore I have cited Origen, speaking to this effect: 
Orig. in mat. 17, 21. Tertul. in apolog: & ad Scapul. cap: 3. Cyp●ian ad Demetri. Chrysost: tom 50. de incompre. Dei natura homil 3.  If at any time we shall deal about the curing of the possessed, we (continuing in prayer & fasting) may obtain help from God for them: & shall drive forth the wicked spirit by fasting and prayer. Next Tertullian, who saith, We expel devils out of men, as is known to many. Then Cyprian, saying, devils are b● us cast out of bodies possessed. Fourthly chrysostom, out of whose testimony there cited at large, these words be part: So the fathers have appointed, that men vexed by the devil should be brought forth, that the people and all the city being present, public prayers might be made for them, that all with one accord might entreat the Lord in their behalf, and might striu● with strong cry, that the Lord would have mercy upon th●m etc. Fiftly Peter Martyr, concerning men possessed, using these words We will use for them faithful prayer●, I say, 
Peter Matter p●●t 4, cap. 9: sect 13. chemnis de sacra ordini●  prayers most vehement, & supplications for th●ir recovery: In a word, this should be the most laud●ble & wise course, that exorcisms at this day be turned into prayers. Sixtly, Chemnisius, who saith, That in the tim● of chrysostom and Prosper the possessed were brought into the Church, and were oft delivered by the common supplications of the assembly. seventhly, Philip Melancthon making mention of divers which were possessed, and namely of a damsel in Mantua, 
Phil. Melanct lib. epistol  that had been healed of that disease by the prayers of the godly, of whom he saith, Et adhuc vivite sana, and yet she liveth and continueth sound: which was 17. years after the cu●e Using further these words, Neither indeed do I doubt but that evil may be taken away, and the devils expelled by the prayer of the godly. And a few lines after, I know many examples a herein it is certain the prayers of the godly prevailed. 
Beza homil. 26, In histor. pass edit 2. page 656.  Eightly Theod. Beza, writing thus, I know a certain householder in France endued with the knowledge of the gospel, and which had embraced the same: who when in anger he had given one of his children to the diu●l, ha● his son●e presently possessed of the devil: 
vogel in thesaur then log. ●ag. 980  out of whom after he was cast by the fervent and uncessant prayers of the church. Nynthly Vogellius affirming that for casting out of devils, there is not a better and more godly way at this day, then that Christ sitting at the r●ght hand of the father, be called v●on, not only by the kinsfolk of the possessed, but also of the wh●le church, with a fervent heart & be put in mind of his omnipotency & mercy, whereby only at this day, the unclean spirits are cast forth ●enthly Danaeus saying, wherefore by fasting and prayer (which he that prayeth doth) devils may be cast forth that is: 
Dan●quest 38 in Marc.  with the long, continual, & fervent prayers of the possessed man, 
Chass in loc, come, lib. 1 cap. 17  and also the church, as are th●se which are joined with ●asting etc. Lastly Chassanion avouching thus, This only remedy remaineth to us, whereby we ought to help these ki●de of me (viz. possessed) worthy of commiseration, to wit that with fervent prayers we ●ray for their deliverance. S● I heard that a Demoniac was delivered in a certain town within the Dolphins province. These testimonies have I alleged in the Doctrine: and unto t●ese can adjoin more. But to what purpose, these remaining unanswered? Now than you Di●coursers, whereas I affirmed, that both the ancient Doctors, & the lights of our own time did witness with me in this po●nt, was this nothing but a Thrasonical vaunt, as you term it? Or hug● braving barrels, that would n●uer be set on broach? and proofs that did hae●ere in calam●, cleave so clo●e to the pen, that they could pr●cure no public passage? 
page, 166:  Are most plain and evident testimonies of truth to be shifted of in this manner? you are like the malefactor's which knowing themselves sure to be cast by the jury, refuse the ordinary trial by God & the country, and will be tried by no other means but by God and the Queen: So you in a desperate case would gain some time and daily of the verdict ready to condemn you, by requiring some other course, which you think is not present.  
To the end therefore your notorious impudence may be had in remembrance, let there be a public instrument drawn to this effect.  
Be it known unto all men by these presents, that john Deacon and john Walker, unworthily reputed Ministers, having had the c●eare evidence of truth passed against them, and being neither able to answer one word, nor enduring to submit themselves thereunto, as they ought, are two shameless beasts, which with branded consciences, and whorish foreheads, have sold themselves to face out a lie, to deceive the simple with. In witness whereof all the learned of this land, which shall consider the allegations against you, and your paltry answers, will in consent of minds subscribe to these presents, that they are true. Let this then suffice for the proof of that I have brought, and so I will proceed to examine yours.  
You cite M. Caluin against actual fasting alone, 
pag: 226  as an effectual counterpoison for the expelling of Satan, as it is maintained by the Papists. What is this to me you Discoursers? Have I any where said it, or showed it by practice, that the very work of fasting and prayer without faith is sufficient in this business? Or doth M. Caluin speak against fasting and prayer being joined with faith? What impudent men are these that dare offer such a thing so palpable to the view of the world? The hare is near driven that is feign for refuge to run between the hunter's legs, and your case is desperate, that seeks relief at such a testimony. Then you cite M. Bullinger as if he also should say, that prayer & fasting is not here prescribed as a perpetual canon. I grant as M. Bullinger understandeth it, that is, It is not prescribed as a perpetual cannon to exorcists. Our saviour doth not here instistute a new office in the Church, but this makes nothing against the common duty of christians, that they in their assemblies whether greater or less, should use prayer & fasting in this behalf. So likewise D. Fulke is to be understood, 
Rhem. t●●●. Math. 17.11.  out of whom you cannot show one syllable against these holy exercises of the congregation, but as they are appropriated to the persons of Exorcists.  
After this dispute you fall a jangling against me, condemning me as a busy b●die for intermeddling in this action at Nottingham. 
page, 26●.  But you might understand if malice would let you, that I pressed not into this business, but was drawn into it. I took upon me no faculty above others, but was willing after much entreaty to join with my brethren in so charitable a work: I disordered no ecclesiastical government of our Church, but being allowed a Minister of the Gospel, I did no more than my place would warrant. What mean you then upon this occasion to let fly at Christ his sacred discipline? 
See pag 270.  Is the disgrace of his ordinance that which must win you your spurs? I know the shadow of discipline is terrible unto you.  
But it were happy for you, if you might taste of her severity, that you might escape his, which accounts not man's negligence, & his winking at our crimes for payment. I will not press you further this way. The Lord give you hearts of flesh, that the works of flesh being destroyed in you, your souls & bodies may be safe in the day of his judgement.  
Whereas you cavil against prayer and fasting, that it is no means to expel Satan, 
pag 271  because the effect doth not presently follow: what ignorance or proud presumption is this, when the Lord himself prayeth, Not my will, but thine be done, the servant should absolutely and presently exact the thing he craves, without respect of the lord his pleasure at all? When thou askest (saith Basil) that which is meet to ask at the Lord his hands, 
de vita solit. cap. 2  cease not till thou hast received it: perhaps for that cause be gives thee not presently, that he may teach thee perseverance, and that thou mayst learn what the gift of God is, and when it is given thee thou mayst keep it with fear. Hither to goeth the proof of the first general argument against prayer and fasting.  
The second is, That prayer & fasting have no power proceeding from them, 
page, 274:  as prayer is either vocal, or personal, & that whether we respect the natural gift, or supernatural, this being also either principal or instrumental, and therefore prayer & fasting have no power at all. For proof of the assumption we have a long discourse of six or seven leaves to no purpose, but only to spend time, of the cause of miraculous operations, a thing known to all, but entered into Divinity, and I thank the lord not doubted of by me. To let go therefore all your needless talk, I answer briefly, that the power proceeding from our prayers was personal, (if you take personal as you ought, and as learned men do for an acceptation of our persons, and not for the principal inherency of this power in our persons) not of myself only, but of all his faithful people then assembled together, accepted by god the father in the person of jesus Christ. Secondly that this personal power was supernatural, depending only upon god his institution, and promise made to prayer, not upon any natural efficacy whatsoever. Thirdly that this power was instrumental, not principal. Fourthly that you most absurdly conclude of the premises. That because this power is instrumental, therefore it is not personal: which both may stand together, and do in all the children of god. But if you will take personal according to a peculiar fancy of your own brain, for a primary being of this power in our persons, then is your first distribution childish, not comprehending all the kinds of power, and so what soever is built thereupon not worth a rush. But is not this a worthy argument think you, which would as well overthrow all efficacy of prayer whatsoever as that action at Nottingham? Surely you dispute as if you were Atheists. For admit all power of prayer should be either vocal or personal, and that it is effectual by neither means, it must needs be it should have no effect at all. O intolerable impiety  
Like stuff it is when you oppose the power of God, and the means, whereas both usually concur in all actions. You go on, 
page 288:  and will disprove, that prayer and fasting is not a means of apprehending the supernatural power of God. But spare your labour: who hath affirmed it? I know no means of apprehending either his power, or other his graces, but only faith. If you can disprove that this hand layeth not hold upon the power of God, strengthened by his promise, whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name, that he will give unto you, proceed on I pray you. Thus than you say, 
page 289.  That this promise containeth not an absolute warrant for every extraordinary enterprise: And herein I accord with you, That only those things are asked in the name of Christ, which are asked according to the will of God, for his sons sake. But it is according to his will, that in all vexations of Satan we should call upon him for help in the mediation of his son. Call upon me, saith he, in the day of thy trouble, and I will hear thee. 
Psal. 50, 16,  And our Saviour teacheth us to pray, But deliver us from evil. Whereupon, if it had pleased you, you might have easily seen we did nothing in this business this way, but for which we have apparent warrant from the word. Yea further, we have the plain words of Christ for confirmation, where he telleth us, 
pag: 291 Math: 17, 21.  That this kind goeth not forth but by prayer and fasting. But because these words are oft alleged, and being truly understood, make much for this cause, I will open the meaning of them, as I now upon more deliberation conceive them. Something I differ from that which hitherto I have followed, but I take it, this which I shall now remember, is most agreeable to our saviours meaning: And I will never be ashamed to reform my judgement. where I see truth doth oversway me. Thus than I do interpret them. Whereas the Disciples demanded why they could not cast forth that devil, Our Saviour doth answer to this effect: Because (saith he) you are destitute of that faith & confidence which once you had, 
Math. 10.  when I sent you forth to preach by two and by two, unto the lost sheep of the house of Is●ael. At that time I gave you power over unclean spirits to cast them out, and you proved the authority I gave you not to be in vain: but after that embassage was ended, as if your commission had expired with that charge, you now doubted, whether you might exercise the sane power sti●l or no & whether I would be assistant unto you in the like work: 
james 1.6.7.  by which wavering you could not receive this thing at my hands, but deprived yourselves of that confidence which you should have had in this cause: which if it had remained firm and stable in you, though in quantity no more than a grain of mustard lead, there should have been nothing unpossible unto you, & this devil should have gone forth at your first command. This than was your first error. Secondly you failed in this, that whereas your extraordinary gift wanted, notwithstanding you set upon this work extraordinarily: whereas in this case, you should only have betaken yourselves to the ordinary course, which is fasting and prayer: for this kind of devil wherewith the child is possessed goeth forth by no other means then the usual and common way of humbling yourselves, and entreating the same with all earnestness at the lords hands: understanding me of the ordinary means. This interpretation ariseth most properly out of the words without any violence: wherein the failing of faith in the disciples, is an utter defect of miraculous faith: the use of fasting and prayer is not an help to weak miraculous faith, which now in the disciples was none at all, but the ordinary means where miraculous faith faileth.  
These be the frivolous arguments, whereby you would disprove the efficacy of God's ordinance for the casting forth of Satan by fasting and prayer as the means of wakening & strengthening of faith, to which the Lord granteth all behoveful requests to his children. Now follows the second part, whether justifying faith doth effect that work. To which I answer. It doth, if you mea●e, It effecteth by obtaining. For what shall we not receive by justifying faith, so long as it craveth nothing: but that is waranted by the word? It is our faith that overcometh the w●rld, 
1 john 5: 4 & 2.14. Rom. 8: 32.  yea by which we overcome that wicked one, that is, the devil. He that spared not his own son but gave him for us all, how shall he not with him give us all things also? Doth not our Saviour ascribe many of his great works he did, to the party's faith upon whom they were done? Be of good cheer daughter, (saith he) thy faith hath saved thee. 
Math. 9.22  And that we may know this faith receiving his great works, was in some a justifying faith, to some he said before he did the work, Thy sins are forgiven thee. Now what do you object against this doctrine? 
Math. 9. 2●  Whereas the words of our Saviour All things are possible to him that believeth, make for confirmation thereof: you reply, 
Mark 9.23 pag: 294.  This faith was not the Exorcist faith, but of the parties possessed. I answer, we know no such difference, as it some one or two were Exorcists amongst us, & all the rest of the people of other condition, but the whole congregation is of one office, and one faith in this business, we be all joint Exorcists, as I may so say, and by way of obtaining throwers out of Satan. Again you object, That if justifying faith hath this power, 
pag. 295  than it belongeth indifferently to all the elect of God, which I yield you. But then say you, They which cannot effect this work, may doubt of their justification. I answer, this objection savours of very gross ignorance. You should be able to teach others, that the Lord hath not tied himself to one uniform order in bestowing of corporal blessings, as if all his children should obtain all at all times. He hath not definitively set down in his word, what, and when he will give us in this kind, but hath only promised them upon this condition, So far as the good of his children, and his own glory shall require. Therefore though he grant these outward things to some, and deny them being requested to other some, this difference is no cause we should stagger in our justification. Besides say you, If justifying faith were of this force, it would have been mentioned in such places where the effects of saith are purposely registered. Prove that all the effects of justifying faith are there mentioned particularly & by name, else you trifle. Albeit S. james saith, If we resist the devil ●e shall fly: noting generally our victory against him, 
james 4, 7, pag. 296 etc. Ma● 16: 17: 18  not only in his assaults, but also in his possessions Expelling of devils mentioned in S. Mark, belonged to a miraculous faith which was peculiarly given to some of the Christians of that age, Doctrine 
pag. ●3 Detection in the epistle;  such as were hearers of the Apostles, and believers by their preaching: as heretofore I have showed more than once. And therefore you might have saved that labour in using so many words, & citing so many testimonies to prove the Sun shines in a clear heaven at midday.   

A Survey of the Tenth Dialogue.  
The tenth Dialogue treateth of Miracles, and laboureth to overthrow dispossession of devils in these times, because such dispossession is a miracle, & miracles be expired long since. In prosecuting of which argument, it is strange to see how the Discoursers beat themselves with their own rod. They would prove unto us that miracles are ceased, & yet afford us no small miracle in their own persons. For is it not wonderful, that men thinking themselves to have some sharpness of wit, to be furnished with sufficient copy of words, to have perused many books, and to have gathered great variety of learning, after some long time spent in deliberation and conference, and then advisedly committing to writing what they had conceived. Should notwithstanding all this, like men skarred out of their wits, and utterly bereft of all power of discerning, take shadows for bodies, bushes for men, chalk for cheese, and grope in the sun light, as in the darkness. They have showed incredible blindness in their former discourses, but in this book of Miracles, it is Miraculous to behold the palpable errors they run into. It may be they did of purpose herein observe a decorum, that the strange handling of the matter, might be suitable to the title. But that I do not seem to charge them wrongfully, I will betake myself to the Survey, first for more plainness setting down the truth in this point, and after rifle up their peddlers pack of devices.  
A true miracle therefore briefly may be defined thus, That it is an hard and unusual work, surpassing all faculty of created nature, done by the divine power to that end, it may move the beholders with admiration, and confirm their faith in the word of God. These true Miracles be of two sorts, for either they be wrought by the Lord himself without any apparent means to us, or else are effected by the ministry of man. Of the former kind was the bush that burned, 
Exod: 3.2. Exod, 13, 21. 2 Kings 19.35:  and consumed not in the sight of Moses: the pillar of a cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night conducting the children of Israel out of Egypt: the slaughter in Senacheribs host of an hundred fourscore and five thousand in one night: the star that directed the wise men out of the East, 
Math. 2 2:  to the place of our saviours birth, & such like. Concerning miracles of this nature, if one shall demand whether they be ceased or no, it is to be answered, they are not. For the Lord hath reserved this liberty to himself, by extraordinary power to reveal his judgements to the world, when and where it shall seem best unto him. And therefore our Saviour speaking of his coming saith, There shall be signs in the sun, & in the Moon, 
Luke, 21, 25, 26.  and in the stars, & the power of heaven shall be shaken. Shall we think these are no miracles? or that they be passed, and not to come? Experience also confirms the same. It were infi●nite to gather what hath happened in all ages since the publishing of the Gospel. I will remember only one or two for example in our own times. Was it not the admiration of all Christendom to behold that bright and clear new star which appeared in the year 1572, continuing almost six months? But to come to our own home, was it not a great miracle that at a place called Kynnastone near Marcleech hill in the county of Hereford certain rooks with a piece of ground of twenty six acres, removed and went forward the space of four days, removing forty paces in twelve hours, & carrying great trees & sheep coats, some with threescore sheep in them, overthrowing Kennastone chapel, altering two high ways nigh an hundred yards, and where tillage ground was, leaving pasture, and where pasture, there tillage? yet all this was seen amongst us the 17. of Feb. in the year 1571. Therefore to speak in confused terms that miracles are ceased without distinction of their nature, is the part of ignorant men, and of such as neither would find out the truth, nor teach it: but only deceive themselves & other with general words.  
That second sort of miracles, which is done by the ministry of men, are all of them wrought by a miraculous faith, apprehending the extraordinary revealed will of God concerning some strange work, what, when & how it is to be performed. All which Peter Martyr distinguisheth by their natures, by their effects, 
loc. come, clas: 1: cap: 8, sect, 4:  and by the special manner how they are done. By their natures, for that some of them are admirable for the very thing done, being so strange and great as the like is not to be found in all nature. Such was the staying of the Sun in the time of josua, and the turning back of the shadow to confirm Ezekiah, and such others. Some are not marvelous for the greatness of the thing done, but for the manner used in doing, as was the cloud and rain of Elyas, the thundering of Samuel, and of the like sort. For such things are done naturally, but at that time were miracles in regard of the manner by which they were effected, that is, not by natural causes, but at the command and will of the Saints. In respect of the effects, some only cause admiration and fear, as the burning lamps and thunders in mount Sinai etc. some have a deeper impression, partly for benefit, as the sick that were healed by Christ and his Apostles, partly in punishment, as when Annanias and Saphyra were struck dead at the words of Peter. In regard of special manner of working, some were done by prayer, as the dead child restored to life by Elisha: Some by command, as Peter bid the lame man in the name of Ie●us Christ arise and walk. Some neither by prayer, nor command, but of their own accord, the Saints themselves occupied in some other matter, as when the shadow of Peter as he walked by did heal the sick: and the kerche●s & handkercheifs carried from S. Paul his body. All these done by the ministry of men are now ceased, for that the miraculous faith by which they were done neither is at this present, nor hath been these many ages imparted to any. Thus than we see what a true miracle is, what be the divers kinds, and which be remaining in the Church and shall continue to the end of the world: & which at this time are cealed.  
Now to come to the other point? whether casting forth of devils in these times by fasting & prayer be a miracle or no To this I answer, 
Chrysost: in epist, 1. ad cor. cap, 2, hom: 6 Aug. de ver. relig cap. 25  it is not. Chris●stome ●aith, That Miracles were not done in his time. And Augustine affirmeth, That Miracles were not permitted to continue to his days, lest the mind should always l oak after vi●●ble things, and mankind should gr●w cold through the custom 〈◊〉 these matters: by the novelty whereof informs time t●ey d●d bur●e. But what need I cite authors for this, when as yourselves mainte●ne strong lie that Miracles ceased together with the Apostles? Well then ●e● us ●oyne hereunto, That ca●ting forth of devils by fasting & prayer we●e used in the times of Chris●stom & August●ne, as we have showed before by thei● own words, which have taught us that their possessed were brought to the public assemblies, & delivered by the prayers of the congregation. Whereupon it must needs follow, that this manner of deliverance in Chrisostomes' and Augustine's judgements, & so of the Church in their time, was no miracle. And the reas●n of this may be apparent by that description of miracles already set down. First because dispossession of devils was very frequent & common in their days. But things common are no miracles. For a Miracle saith Augustine, 
August de utilitate cred. ●d Honorat, cap, 16  is an unwonted thing: And therefore (●aith he) they are not done in these days, Because they w●lde not move, except they were marvelous, neither would they be marvelous, if they were usual Secondly, for that the work itself doth not make a miracle in respect of man's ministry, but the manner of doing, as hath been showed in the second distinction of Miracles. As for example, The cloud and the rain sent at Elyas prayer was a miracle, because the Lord had revealed it unto him, and he had embraced the same by faith knowing when and how it should be sent. Yet when the Church of God in the time of drought and famine, shall by public prayer obtain clouds & rain, this is no miracle. As when Solomon saith, 
1 Kings 8: 35:  when heaven shall be shut up, and there shall be no rain, because they have sinned against thee, and shall pray in this place, and confess thy name, & turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them, Then hear thou in heaven, and give rain upon the earth etc. Doth he here pray they might be relieved by miracle? Nay, but showeth what the ordinary course of the Church is in this case. So when the Disciples cast forth devils by their miraculous faith, and the Church now a days by fasting & prayer, the same work in substance is done by both, but the manner of doing is much differing, 
S. Doctrine pag. 35  which makes a difference also in the Action, and causeth that their work was miraculous, & the same done by the Church in these times not to be miraculous. This little may suffice for distinct understanding of this doctrine: which diligently observed will preserve us from those horrible downfalls into which these blind Discoursers tumble themselves. Now then to examine theirs.  
First we have a definition of a Miracle in general, to be an extraordinary work of God, 
pag. 306. etc.  highly surmounting the whole faculty of every created nature, to work admiration in the beholders, and to confirm their faith in the truth of God's word. Next we have it divided into the several kinds, whereof the one is a True miracle, the other a false From whence it must needs follow that the general definition must also agree to a false miracle. And that therefore a false miracle is an extraordinary work of God, highly surmounting the whole faculty of every created nature, to confirm the saith of the beholders in the truth of the word. But this is a thing most absurd once to dream of. Seeing then to make a General whose definition can not agree to the specials, is a work above nature: and that M. Deacon & M. Walker have created such a General, 
pag. 309. etc.  I do demonstratively thereupon conclude, That miracles are not yet ceased.  
Again, whereas I affirm, That casting forth of devils in these times by fasting & prayer is no miracle because it is done by ordinary means without the miraculous faith, (in which sense only I understand means, the use whereof maketh a work to be no miracle) you keep a foolish jangling about this, in three pages together without either head or foot. 
page. 311,  Only when in one place you began to conclude, according to your absurd manner you oppose the supernatural power of God, to his appointed means, as if there were deadly feud between them, so that they must needs kill and destroy one an other. May it not be said, that Moses by his miraculous faith & his rod divided the sea, as by the means, because the Lord in truth wrought the thing by his own mighty arm?  
Moreover to stop your brawling mouths you have been told, 
pag. 312. etc.  that Casting forth of devils in this sort, is a thing marvelous, but not miraculous. Which difference, if you were not miraculously deprived of common sense, you might easily perceive to be no less than is between the General & the Special. Every Miraculous thing is marvelous, but not every marvelous thing miraculous. 
genes: 43: 36.  Except it was a miracle that joseph placed his brethren according to their auncyentie, because the Egyptians marveled at it. Cato marveled that one wysard, when he saw an other, could forbear laughing, was this forbearance of laughing in the wisardes a miracle? If this might pass for currant, we should have as many miracles as we have fools, and so the world full of miracles. But you will prove it by Hebrew that marvels & Miracles are all one, because Oath & Mopheth are the same. But first you should have proved that all marvels are either Oath or Mopheth: which you never go about: and it were but lost labour you should. So then the whole discourse for nine pages together, is an evident reasoning from the affirmation of the General, to the Special: as if one should say thus, That which is a living creature is M. Deacon & M. Walker: But an Ox is a living creature, and divers others his cousin germans besides: Therefore an Ox by this Logic should be as wise as yourselves. Surely you have found the Philosopher's stone which is able to turn lead into gold: you can do more than the spirits can: for you have proved and I also believe it, they cannot transform one nature into an other, which I see is within the compass of your Omnipotency.  
You return a fresh to Miracles wrought by means. Concerning which I tell you again (for such importunate beggars will not rest with one answer) that whatsoever is wrought by ordinary means only, 
pag: 321. etc.  without miraculous faith, is no miracle. Now if you can show that Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter and the rest wrought their admirable works in such manner, than I will esteem you for great wise men. 
page: 322. page. 323  You affirm that Dispossession of devils were always reputed true miracles in the Church of God: which I have manifested to be false by the testimonies of chrysostom & Augustine, whereas you are pressed by Exorcists that If signs & wonders be true miracles indeed, then Antichrist must also needs work true miracles, to shift of this (which you can never avoid) you distinguish clerkly of that which is not in the syllogism, to wit of Miracles in general. The syllogism mentioneth only true Miracles, & therefore your distinction must needs be, That true miracles are of two sorts, either true or false, (which is your former miraculous division) or else you leave the matter where it was, 
page, 306: pag: 324.  yielding that Antichrist doth work true miracles. But forsooth you will go strictly to work, and after some nipping disiunctives, at last you descend to this, that If I wrought a wonder at Mahgnition, than I wrought an undoubted true miracle. must you needs still infer a Special from the affirmation of the General? You abound in such admirable conclusions. Where you say, that Expelling of Spirits, is no less marvelous now, than it was in the primitive Church. If you mean the Church in the Apostles time, you say untruly: It was done by miraculous faith then, it is not so now, which makes a difference in the work, as hath been showed in Elyah his cloud, and that which is ordinarily obtained by prayer. And this is all you can say to prove that Expelling of devils is now a miracle: for which you have not afforded the least colour of any reason.  
The rest of this Dialogue is spent in proving that Miracles are ceased, wherein I might be silent, both considering Dispossession in these times is no miracle, and therefore nothing at all impeached by this discourse, and also for that I grant the cealinge of miracles according to such distinction: as hath been before set down, that is, as they be wrought by the ministry of man. Neither doth any thing you bring weaken this truth, but rather much confirm it. Yet in handling this point you have divers unsound positions. As if there were no other end of miracles, but the testification of Christ his Deity, & the confirmation of the Gospel, whereas Miracles do as well confirm the Law, as the Gospel, judgement, as well as Mercy. And the Lord always hath & will testify his wrath from heaven against sinners, 
page 325.  which will not believe the threatenings of his word to forsake their wicked ways. Again, say you, Christ's resurrection was the last Miracle for confirmation of his Deity. Then what was his Ascension into heaven? Is it nothing with you? It being also confirmed that in these days of Athiesme the Lord may and doth reveal his extraordinary power, for the terrifying of men's stony hearts. You answer It is an irreligious insinuation, & a gap for all knaveries. but if you were able to weigh all things aright, you would see it were irreligious to sew pillows under men's elbows. And as for the gap to knavery, what window can be opened, when the ministry of man is wholly excluded, & these wondrous works left immediately to the Lord himself? you are mad when you see not the difference between the Papists dealing in this business, 
pag. 327.  and that of the Church of God. D. Fulke doth worthily reprove their lying miracles, but bring forth one word out of him, wherein he gives the least check to this manner of work done by God his faithful people: against which you have no less ignorantly, then proudly vaunted yourselves like two mighty Goliahs. 
gage. 329.  As for those Learned men which you challenge to maintain this cause against you, would you have them to strain themselves with such tr●elers? It is enough for them to leave such as myself, 
pag. 330. etc.  unworthy to carry their books, to lash such bayards. All your reasons against Miracles conclude on lie against such as are done by the ministry of man: and so likewise your testimonies unto which I willingly subscribe. Only, good Reader, mark that D. Fulke (who is the fourteenth in order) speaking against an ordinary function in the Church to cast forth devils, 
pag 333  means a peculiar office of Exorcists, as it is in the popish Church, appointed to this purpose. There is no such office left by Christ: but that a faithful congregation making suit to the Lord in the mediation of his Son, hath no promise to obtain the deliverance of their brethren from the vexation of devils, it never came into his heart (for any thing I could ever see by his writings) to think. But these men according to their manner, allege one thing for an other: every clod in the fallow, is an hare with them, and they can follow it with as full cry, as if the best game that is were on foot before them. Well now, Christian Reader, that I have laid open their dealing unto thee, be thou thyself judge, whether in the beginning my speech exceeded any thing or no. I doubt not, but thou thyself wilt be amazed to see men so bereft of all judgement: and that thou wilt behold in them a manifest example of that bewitching, wherewith S. Paul did charge the foolish Galathians. 
gal. 3.1.  I hope also thou wilt rather be a means to free these men from the snares, wherewith thou seest them entangled, then suffer thyself to be entrapped with them. And therefore relying upon thy Christian wisdom in this behalf, I proceed to the last Dialogue.   

A Survey of the Eleventh Dialogue.  
The first part of this Dialogue is the sink of all the former, being nothing else but a Recapitulation of them: 
page: 339:  we have proved the several channels unsavoury enough: I mean not here to stir them afresh. The second part is a Pathetical persuasion: Pathetical indeed both to him that would rejoice at the infirmity of others, for it would make him to laugh: and also to him that greeveth at their harms, for it would make him to pity you. 
page. 347.  It is no discredit you Discoursers, that I am afraid of, No scandal to zealous professors, No suspicion of Conspiracy, No confirmation of the B. nor any other such fond respects, that causeth me to be fliff in opinion. I hope the Lord will assist me (it is my prayer that he will) that I shall tread all these under my feet, and greater matters than these if need be, for his truths sake. But if any can disprove the actions that have been done for matter of fact, or any thing that I have delivered or taught, by sound doctrine out of the truth of God his word, I will give glory to the Lord, & confess myself to have erred and been deceived, although for deceiving, the God of heaven & earth is witness it never came into my heart. As for loss of maintenance, & deprivation from Ecclesiastical dignity, neither do these move me one whit. This is your silly cunning under pretence of alleging for me, to write your own Apology. You comfort yourselves with a Discourse, That no man is able to make a flat nullity in any man's ministry. 
pag. 349. 350  Deceive not yourselves M. Deacon & M. Walker: The Church may deprive of their ministry such as by erroneous crimes deserve it. ●ay not the Church make a Minister that hath grievously offended the congregation, & continueth obstinate, as one that is a Publican & an heathen? 
Math: 18.17.  Do you think an Heathen may hold the place of a Minister over the Church of God? Again, such as making shipwreck of a good conscience are delivered to Satan, can they during their subjection be fit captains against him, 
1 Tim: 1: 10:  to the people of God? The salt that hath lost his savour, with what shall it be seasoned? It is good for nothing but to be cast forth, 
Math: 5, 15:  & to be trodden under foot by men. How shall he reprove others, that is reproved by all? How shall he which teacheth not himself, teach an other? 
Rom. 2, 21.22  How shall the known Adulterer command others not to commit Adultery? Let a Bishop be unblamable, saith the Apostle: 
1 Tim: 5.2.  which charge hath not only place in his first Election, but also the whole time he continueth in his office. 
Psal. 50, 16  Unto the wicked (saith God) what hast thou to do to declare mine ordinances, that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth, Seeing thou hatest to be reform, and hast cast my words behind thee? For when thou seest a thief thou runnest with him, and thou art partaker with the Adulterers. Therefore this consolation of yours will deceive you. 
pag: 340  But you say, where God doth continue his gracious gifts in any, there ought to be also continued the execution of the gifts. This also is a rotten foundation. I doubt not but the false Apostles retained still their gift of speech, wherein they seemed to surpass S. Paul. Besides a man may falsely judge of his own gifts. When went the Spirit of the Lord from me, 
1 King: 22, 24 Mica, 3, 6  to speak unto thee, said Zidkyah unto Michaiah? Indeed the Lord doth threaten that night shallbe to false prophets for a vision, and darkness for a divination: that the Sun shall go down over them, & that the day shallbe dark. And I beseech you weigh but with indifferency (if it be possible in your own case) if in these discourses, The sword of the Lord hath not been upon your right eye. 
Zacha: 11.17.  All these things considered, stand not (I beseech you) in defence of error and wickedness. Regard I have stricken you, rather upon the garments, then upon the bare skin. Indignation sometimes hath wrung from me sharp speech, yet such as hath wounded no further, then for School matters, except yourselves will.  
Receive therefore the word of exhortation. Let your defence be confession: your reply, tears: your inveighing against others, I have sinned: your suit for preferment, to be in the number of God's children. What if the Church sleep in doing her duty? He that keepeth Israel neither slumbereth, nor sleepeth. What if the Lord also for a time keep silence? Indeed, saith he, I held my tongue: & thou thoughtest I was like thee: 
Psal. 50, 21  but I will reprove thee, & set thy sins in order before thee. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God. Who shall plead for us, when all shall stand at the same bar with us? The Lord grant my words may have due place with you, that instead of proving me a counterfeit (which your discourses intent) you may gain yourselves true Christians, whereby your loss in failing of your purpose may turn to your advantage, & my grief in sustaining so many reproaches, may in the end yield me & all the angels of God, great matter of joy.  
In the mean season, I humbly thank the Lord which yet at last hath opened your mouths to acknowledge the truth in some part. For proccedinge in your course, and coming to speak of a precompacted confederacy, towards the end you give evident testimony of mine innocency, 
page 352.  affirming that Howsoever others esteem of any compact, for your own parts (you assure me) you are very far from such a suspicion, yea & this also you dare say for so many besides, as have been acquainted with my former sincerity, and upright carriage, they are every of them free from such a persuasion. And this only, say you, is that which we entertain, & very confidently hold for a truth, Namely that the graceless boy, did gracelesly counterfeit, & knavishly bear the world in hand, he was really possessed of Satan, when there was no such matter at all. But as concerning yourself, we do undoubtedly think, that the same was simply your error in judgement, but no purposed error in your practice at all. This is your testimony. Seeing therefore you are so persuaded of me in your consciences, how comes it to pass, that through your whole discourses you have traduced me as a deceiver? And namely in your Answer, pag: 39 40. where speaking of Somers his supernatural knowledge, you shift that of, by ascribing his predictions etc.: to some cunning confederacies with me. Why should we wonder at all (say you) that two cunning companions confederate together before, should conclude such a course between themselves, as the one (by the help of the other) should prognosticate such strange & incredible events, etc. Have you there striven against conscience? Or hath the truth here prevailed against your wills? Surely it is wonderful that men seeking favour by soothing, and hoping for some great advantage by justifying other men's indirect courses, should notwithstanding the B. his violent dealing, whether by imprisonment, or by pretence of law whatsoever, notwithstanding also M. Harsnets authentical book, written for confirmation of the said proceed, yea notwithstanding their own ends, and long tedious pains to compass them, should I say, notwithstanding all these, after many discourses clear me altogether of the pretended crine and thereby withal show that the Bishop hath dealt unjustly, M. Harsnet falsely, 
1 Cor. 3, 19  and they themselves wickedly in joining hands to oppress the guiltless. It is the Lord which catcheth the wise in their own craftiness. Neither do I only in this your confession behold the victory of truth over yourselves, but am forced to praise the Lord for his great goodness, which hath made the bishop himself (the greatest Adversary to this cause) to subscribe to my uprightness in it. Your book comes forth by his privilege. No doubt it was perused, & perused again. It lay a long time in his hands. And who can tell whether this testimony be not his own words set down under your names? It may be the Lord hath touched his heart for that he did against me. And howbeit public confession were requisite in public wrongs, yet it is some ease to sun men's consciences to make confession covertly. whatsoever therefore other men may think, That he would be far from such acknowledgement, yet I will hope the best, as knowing there is nothing unpossible unto the Lord. Neither skills it greatly whether he writ these very words or no, considering he hath allowed & approved them at least, in giving them public passage and privilege to them. And therefore though S. Paul, when the sergeant were sent unto him, refused to departed secretly out of prison, but as by public authority he was cast in, so by the same authority he would be brought forth: yet I being beyond comparison inferior to him, will rest myself content in having my open injuries satisfied, though but in this secret manner. How good and gracious is the Lord which bringeth forth the righteousness of his servants as the light, & their judgement as the noon day. As he dealt with our head Christ in causing Pilate to pronounce him a just man, so he dealeth with his poor members according to their several degrees. He made Saul acknowledge David more righteous than himself, & Agrippa & Festus to say of Paul, He had done nothing worthy of bonds. To this therefore only wise, & gracious, & Mighty Lord God, the father, the Son, & the holy spirit, be all honour & praise for ever & ever.  
Amen.  
FINIS.