The replie of Iohn Darrell, to the answer of Iohn Deacon, and Iohn Walker, concerning the doctrine of the possession and dispossession of demoniakes.

A REPLIE TO THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THe second part of my Doctrine treateth, That those eight before mentioned were verily dispossessed, & that by fasting and prayer, the meanes appointed by God. For confirmation wherof, I knew no better rule then the example of men dispossessed in holy Scripture, which is the onely true and vnsallible touchstone to examine both this, and all other actions by. These Answerers scorne these notes, calling them falsly pretended signes of dispossession from sacred Scripture, and therefore pretermitting them, require my argumentes, as if the Signes from Scripture were no arguments at all. It seemeth you haue found a veine of better mettal then the Scriptures, frō whence your whole booke is so full stuffed with your owne shining drosse, and is so vtterly destitute of this purified gold. Yet you cannot beat me from them, but I vrge them thus: There were in our Demoniakes the selfe same signes or notes of dispossession, precedent and subsequent, which wee rea••e of in the Scripture Demoniakes, and therefore the same dispossession▪ you answere, There were not the same signes in our de∣moniakes: and first, because they were meere cosonages, as is confessed freely by the parties themselues vpon their owne oathes. I reply, the parties we speake of, bee eight in number, whereof onely Sommers hath made this cursed confession: which was not free and volun∣taries, as you vntruly affirme, but extorted by Satan, and his instru∣ments, as in my Detection I haue made manifest. But what say you to the seuen in Lancashire? It may be Sommers hath sworne for thē all: for they as yet, were neuer examined: yet because we doubt of Somers general oath, I pray you proue vnto vs, who taught the chil∣dren to counterfeit? when, and where, and by what meanes they were taught? what end might induce them to imbrace such tea∣ching? whether the parents were priuy to it? and what they pro∣pounded in practising such wickednesse? Yea, put Sommers too in∣to the roll, & shew vs what man is able by practise to do the things that either Sommers or they did? And one woulde thinke a man of meane agility might quickly performe that, which cofoning yong boyes and girles could. Shew vs, I beseech you, these and such like things, or otherwise if you cannot shew thē, & yet tel vs of cos••nage, you shew vs nothing but your long eares, & brasen faces. Secondly,

say you, The signes in the Scripture Demoniakes were sensibly perc••i∣ued by the beholders: but these in your pretended Demoniakes were not so, by your own confession. Belike all we that were spectators of our Demoniakes, being (at sundrie times) a great multitude, were all stricken with blindnesse, with deafnesse, and with a benummednes, and yet we all thought we vsed our senses, and I am sure, wee were no sooner out of the place, but we were able, the Lord bee thanked, to see, heare and feele. But you confirme this by mine own confession, which saith, that the spirit could not possibly be felt or seene. I said so, & say so againe, that Spirits cannot be felt or seene in their owne bare essence, but as they make themselues knowne vnto vs by their ef∣fects. I angling Sophisters will dispute, That the nose of a mans face cannot be seene, because that which we see is but colour or forme, and the nose it selfe is neither of both. Your eares ring it may bee with their noise, which hath made you borrow an argument from them. Thirdly, you say, The Signes we report are false: which I would graunt you if your selues had learned to speake truth. We must re∣member there are aboue two hundred witnesses hereof liuing at this day, of which some haue deposed the same wee report of Som∣mers. Fourthly, say you, Scripture Signes can argue no Dispossession now, because like effects may arise frō naturall causes, and coporall disea∣ses. By this your good helpe Atheists might ouerthrow all Posses∣sions and Dispossessions in the scripture. But howsoeuer you may be friendly to such vile wretches, yet haue they no foothold from hence. For neither those effects in those ancient Demoniakes, nor in these of our time iointly & wholy considered can proceed from naturall disease. Naturall causes can bring forth no supernaturall ef∣fects, as we haue demōstrated these to be in spight of your seuenth Dialogue, and what other treaty so euer you oppose against it. Last¦ly, say you, A dispossession may bee without such apparant signes, and therefore your signes precedent and subsequent do not necessarily conclude a dispossession. What? Because it is sometimes without these signes, therefore where these signes are, shall it not be? It is sometime day light without the cleare sunshine, therefore when the Sunne shines cleare shall it not be day? Sometimes the murderer slayes a man and is not taken with the manner, therefore if he be taken with the manner, shall he not necessarily bee concluded a murtherer? These are good rules to make a man impudent in sinne: for by them the bold offender shall speede better, then hee that doth it minchingly▪ You haue spoken then pretily against these signes, but without any

signe of truth or wit.

From Scripture signes I descend to some experimented by my selfe in dealing with Demoniakes, which haue reported certaine vi∣sible shapes, in which the diuels seemed to depart from them. But here I am taken vp for halting, in that I call it My experience, which was proued in the persons of other. I confesse I spake rudely, as all other men do, which call a physition a man of good experience, though he hath not proued all the diseases, he hath dealt with, in his owne bo∣dy. As for visible shapes, you vtterly deny, that Spirits could procure thē: yet they did before Pharaoh, and infinite others since, as wee haue shewed by better arguments in my suruey of your fourth and fift Dialogues, then you euer haue, or can for the contrarie. Some also I shew did vomit, or straine to vomit when the diuel departed. With this you make good sport, perhaps ticled with remembrance, that you haue returned to your owne vomit.

Further, I concluding a dispossession, from the present effect of our prayers (wherof the like is not in naturall diseases.) You charge me with proper tearmes, as with certaine charming words to coniure the Lord with, for so it pleaseth your prophane mouthes to speake. And yet I do not vse the word proper. Onely I say, And God heard our prayer vit••red in such tearmes▪ that is, made to that effect, as before I haue shewed in briefe. I neuer dreamed that such▪ Argooses would come after mee with so manie eyes, to finde an hole in my coate for these words more thē in all other mens. But to let words passe, you would disproue the effect of our prayers, for that we could not make the parties the Temples of the holy Ghost, as we had prayed. Wee challenge no such power, but we might well hope of the mercy of the Lord to sanctifie them, which did plainly behold his great good nesse in deliuering them from Satans great rage. Howsoeuer mee thinks you should not be offended with vs for putting vp this re∣quest to God. And what if the Lord doth not alwayes yeelde pre∣sent successe to the prayers of his seruants? Could we not therfore be assured he had now heard vs, when we saw the thing performed before our eyes▪ It is true the Diuel sometime seemeth to depart, when he doth not but when it is at the requests of Gods people▪ when it is after such grieuous vexation as was in the Demoniakes in the Gospell, when it is with the health of the parties, and present freedome from all former vexations dy Satan, wee need not doubt of it in any sort. For the visible departure of Satan, I answered you euen very now.

Besides, I alleage for Dispossession, Satans desire of repossession, which is neuer but after he is throwne out. You returne a double an∣swere, first, that these wordes, I will returne to the house from whence I came, &c. be metaphoricall. Wee remember indeede your monstrous absurditie in making all things whatsouer, spoken of Angels, and diuels in the scripture▪ to be Meaphoricall. But as I haue shewed you, manie are not Metaphoricall, so neither is this repecting the sentence of it. The words be part of a similitude, as is plaine by the reddition, So shall it be to this wicked generation. The whole standeth thus. As when an vncleane spirit goeth forth of a man, passeth through drie places seeking rest, and findeth none: then faith, I will returne to my house, &c. entring againe in, the last estate of that man is worse thē the first▪ so shal it be to this wicked generatiō. Now to find what past of this sentence is Metaphoricall, we are to know that a simili∣tude is twofold. One which is contracted & shut vp in one word, properly called a Metaphor▪ the other displaid & spread open, con¦sisting of all the parts at large, and is tearmed by the name of the generall, a Similitude. For the figuratiue part in either, the reason is one in both. Therfore as in a contracted similitude, the Metaphor lyeth in the word that is borrowed, and not in that from▪ whence it is borrowed, so in the larger similitude, the metaphoricall part of it resteth in the Reddition, not in the Proposition. For example▪ Ho∣nour nourisheth Artes: the word Nourisheth being borrowed frō meats nourishing the bodie, is a Metaphor as it is applyed to Ho∣nour, and Artes, but attributed to his proper termes, it is no Meta∣phor, as to say thus, Meat nourisheth the body. In like manner (to make a full Similitude of it, in this sort) As meat nourisheth the bo∣dy, so Honour nourisheth Artes, the Metaphoricall part of the whole, lyeth in the latter member, not in the first. So likewise when our Sauiour saith, As a man deliuered from the possession of Satan, and receiuing him in againe, is in worse case after, then before: So the nation of the Iewes, once deliuered from the kingdome of Sa∣tan, so long as the church of God was amongst them, and comming into his subiection againe by refusing Christ, should bee in more miserable condition then in any former time: the Metaphoricall sentence of this Similitude, is in the last branch of it, not in the first. Not because there be no Metaphoricall words in the first, as Drie places, house emptie, swept, garnished. &c. but for that wee now speake of Metaphoricall sentences, not of words. I frame my argu∣ment from the Proposition of the Similitude, the sentence where∣of

is literall and historicall, not from the Reddition, whose sense is allegoricall. Now then i•• a man should reason thus: The Reddition of the Similitude is Metaphoricall, therefore the whole is metapho∣call, it is all one as if one should say, The blacke Moore bath white teeth, therefore he is all white. Which kinde of argument euerie chimney-sweeper would deride: and yet thus you reason from this place, and make it one of your chiefest props to vpholde your ab∣surd conclusions with. But vnto this place I added another, where our Sauiour saith to the vncleane spirit, Come out of him, and enter no more into him. Was our Sauiours prohibition here in vaine? was this caution altogether needlesse and supers••uo us? How chaunce you pass ouer this place, withoutanswerīg one word vnto it▪ It was too plaine: and you two could not agree where the Metaphor should lie, & therefore thought better to slip it ouer, then by hand∣ling it, and bewraying your owne absurdities to marre all. The re∣entrie therfore of Satan is plaine by the Scriptures: so that we need not the testimonie of any experience: yet I haue adioyned in the Doctrine the report of the children dispossessed, and the euidence of many godly then present, which perceiued by their agonie, and the words of their resistance, what Satan attempted. You trifle ouer this with greater childishnesse then appeared in the childrē, though but nine or tenne yeares old, and therefore I disdaine to answere it▪ Againe for proofe of dispossession, I alleage thē continuance of the parties health since: you answere: Their former fittes were but counter∣terfeit, a•• themselues haue confessed. A stale proofe of their counterfei∣ting, and answered before. The seuen in Lancashire neuer confessed any counterfeiting.

Thus hauing confirmed Dispossession, I remoue that vsuall ob∣iection, shewing it is now no miracle, for that it is not done by ab∣solute power of Christ in bodily presence, as he sometimes did it when he was here conuersant on earth▪ nor by any committed ex∣traordinary power to men but by ••asting an•• pra••er as the means▪ you answere first: as if I affirmed Christs absolute power to be ceas••d: which I affirme not, but account such affirmation blasphemie▪ He is not now present in bodie on earth, but worketh by his absolute authoritie still. Secondly, If Christs absolute author••ty be th••o••ly ••ffi∣cient▪ then the worke is a•• miraculous, as euer. Which is a flat vntruth, as I ha••e proued at large in ••our tenth Dialogue. For works done by men as instruments are distinguished by the maner of working, and not by the principall cause. you say my Similitude from the

Queene, and Lord Chauncelour is too absurd: for first, it is a case which neuer shall be, and so cannot illustrate. I had thought that fictasimili∣tudo might haue had some force. But surely as you are full of newe Diuinitie, so I thinke you haue swallowed Margaritam Philosophiae, you breake out on euerie occasion with such wonderfull new axi∣omes of Logicke. I intended that Similitude to the manner onely of Christs working, and you would extend it to the like glory of his works now, cleane beyond my purpose, and any good probabilitie. For are not Christs workes more glorious, when together with him selfe his seruants worke extraordinarily, as they did in the time of miracles, then now, when his seruants working is only ordina∣rie. But you will make the same similitude ouerthrow all miracles now, which I will yeeld for any, but for your selues: for you haue a priuiledge to do miracles, as is apparant in your tenth Dialogue.

Hitherto for Dispossession, now for the meanes: which I affirme with many godly and learned of auncient and our owne times, to be fasting and prayer, out of the words of our Sauiour, This kinde go••th not out but by fasting and prayer. Where I calling it a Secret ordi∣nance, oppose it to more euident places: you catch at the word, and come vpon me with Secret things belong onely to God. He that should deale with you had neede, as the Lawyers in writing their instru∣ments, rather haue twentie words to spare, then to want one. You would proue, these words did onely belong to the Disciples, because the question was made by them, and the answere to them. The Iayler in the 16. of the Acts sayd to Paul and Silas, What must I do to be saued? They answere him: Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt be saued, &c. Doth this Scripture now only belong to the Iaylor, because this question was made by him, & the answer vnto him? Of this kind be infinite other places. For interpretation of these words of Saint Matthew, I haue shewed you how I conceiue of them in your ninth Dialogue. Which exposition varieth somwhat from my former, not because I cannot maintaine it against any thing you ob∣iect, but because I seeke after truth, and not after vaine iangling. If you can shew me any better, I will be readie also to change this. In meane season vnderstand how I reason from hence for the perpetu∣al meanes of Fasting and prayer, which are mentioned by our Saui∣our in this place, either as helpes to the extraordinarie and miracu∣lous faith of the Apostles, or else of the ordinarie. But they are not mentioned as helpes to the extraordinarie: for miraculous faith in the least quantity, though no more then a graine of mustard seede

was able without these helpes to expell any diuell. Besides they could not be helpes to that, which in it selfe had no being. For the Disciples had vtterly lost their miraculous faith, else they had ele∣cted the spirit. This also the word Apistia, incrdulity doth note vn to vs. And an helpe is a conioyned force, which coniunction cannot be, where there is nothing to ioyne withall▪ and therefore they bee propo unded in this place as helpes to the ordinary faith, and so to haue a perpetuall ordinarie vse, when like occasion is ministred to vs. Againe, euery Exception is a compendious speech, comprehen¦ding in it two propositions, as, Except a man be borne againe, he can∣not see the kingdome of God▪ wherein is concluded also this, If f a man be borne againe he can se the kingdome of God. So, None can come vnto me except the Father draw him. Euery one can come vnto mee, whom my Father draweth. Againe, Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saued. If these abide in the ship, you can be saued. And so in all other. In like manner, This kind doth not go forth, but by prayer and fasting. This kind doth go forth by prayer and fasting. Now thē let men o•• iudgement determine whether here be not an euident confirmation of the ordinarie course of the Church in dealing after this maner▪ and whether it be not exceeding boldnesse, our Sauiour affirming in such sort as is declared▪ That this kind doth goe forth by prayer and fasting, for any to open his mouth licenciously agaīst it, and to disgrace it by al opprobrious tearmes he can. From hence too you may see, the similitude drawne from the Physition saying to his patient, daungerously sicke of the Pleurisy, You cannot liue, except you bleed, was to good purpose, if you could iudge what is to purpose.

It is too tedious to repeat all your vntruthes, your absurd Non sequiturs, and idle profes. As if I thought it vnreasonable for Christ to reproue his Disciples negligence: if Christs answere were not proper to the Disciples, it was no answere: if he directed not his speech to the Disciples onely, he spake to no body present. This mettal craues no touchstonne, it shewes it selfe by the eye what it is: therefore a knocke with an hammer is sufficient So, If this answere of Christ propounded an ordi∣nance for al ages to come, there is an ordinance without an appointed sub∣iect to vnde••go the same. Indeed this would be straunge for Accidents to walke alone without subiects. It is a difficult matter to finde who should be the subiect of fasting and praver: so likewise too of the kingdom of God, which our Sauiour ordaineth to be sought in the first place, and food and rayment in the second, if we could tell who

〈◊〉〈◊〉 do it▪ ••esides succeeding ages that could expell this cumbersom•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sh••uld haue more power the eu••r the A••••stles bad, which is false: for the Apostles, their▪saith not fayling, could expell any diuell. Fur¦ther, The Apo••••les should ••aile in not d••cla••ing this ordinance vnto vs: concerning which ynough hath beene sai••e in the ninth Dialogue. I ast••y, it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 establ••shed ordi••ance in this place, because M Darr••ll af∣••••••••th it hath b••ene a •• ordinance fr••m the beginning. I answere, I doe not refe••••e the originall to this place, but onely the Confirmation, no otherwise then I make Matrimony an established ordinance by our Sauiour Christ, he rene••ing the institution of it.

Againe▪ I argue the meanes of fasting and prayer from the ex¦ample of the Iewes Church in our Sauiours time: wherin some did cast forth diuels▪ and yet were not in the number of our Sauiours Disciples, neither did it in his name. You answere, I contrarie my sel••e, affirming ••l••e where, they did it by the ••inger of God: I reply, ••ou do not contrary your selfe▪ but are euer li••e your selues, most ab¦sur••ly concluding the selfe same working of the instrument, from the same maner of the principall agent: whereas the chiefe doer being the same, may and doth worke by the instrument diuersly. Againe, say you by mine ••wne consession, this ordinance as then was not established▪ I answere, is was not so plainely, as when our ••auiour con¦firmed it by these words, yet in generall it was, and practised in the Church before. Moreouer, say you, Those in our Sauiours time besides his Disciples▪ cast out diuels by miraculous faith only, for which you al∣leage the seuenth of Matth••w I reply, this scripture speaketh onely of the e••ection of Satan but sheweth not in what manner the same was performed, nor when▪ We do not leane vpon any doubtfull vn∣certainties, as you would Rhetorically declare, if ye knew how▪ nei∣ther do we take the Lords holy name in vain••, nor pray with••ut faith▪ as you prate both without wit and conscience. I passe ouer your foo∣leries concerning K. Wright, & your sixe lies at one clap▪ contained in seuen lines, as I can proue to your shame. But what speake I of sixe, when I dare say there be sixe hundred leasings in ••our two vo¦lumes? VVe neede not take things of whole sal•• men by retale: it ••s ••n ea••y matter to know b•• ••our l••ing whose children ve are

That Christs speech ought not t•• be a••propriated to the Disciples, hath bee••e declared. Neither ••o I say and unsay as ••ou falsly charge me. The communication was betweene our Sauiour and his Disciples, b••t the ordinance there mentioned is common to all▪ ••et Phys••alo∣gus sit these variable answers, as hee miscals them, doth tell vs a

tale of an H••rmit▪ which comming to a Farmers house, and blowing his fingers to warme them, and his ••ottage to coole them, was s••nt packing by the Farmer▪ as a diss••mbling c••mpanion. But, to requite you tale, what if the like Hermit had come to some good mans house, and ha∣uing on his face a faire shining visarce with A. W. written vpon it, should vpon occasion haue his visard shaken off, and vnder it shewe another face, signed with I. De. Might not the good man iustly abhorre this double fa••ed guest, ••nd a••monish all honest com¦panie to beware of him? I will pard••n you your sport at fast and loose for a shilling, though I might iustly make it s••t ••aster vnto you, then you would vnloose againe in haste. Put where is the contrarie∣tie, I pray you, in making th••se words to ••ee spoken to the Disciples, and yet not onely to be vnderstood of them? You would collect it after this manner, Because that weaknesse of faith, and the kind of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 w••re the two in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wherefore the child was not deliuered. And that which is an impediment to anie, is also proper to the same partie, if we will beleeue your Metaphysi••kes. For you must needs deriue your As∣sumption f••••m hence. As if the Is••aelites being shut ••ut of the land of promise for their v••beleefe, this impediment should bee so pro∣per to them, that n••re but themselues should be excluded for the same: which absurditie is of that nature, that if your sticke of fast and loose were •• good sound cudgell, you deserue to be well labou∣red about the shoulders with it▪ ••ut what should I pursue your se∣uerall absurdities? To ••ake after such scatterers were to fill a cart, rather then ones lap. In briefe for your whole dispute, to pr••ue these words only to belong to the Disciples: I•• incredulitie and ••mission of prayer and fasting were impediments onely to the nine Disciples, (for Peter, Iames and Iohn were not of this number) then they can be impediments to no body else. And so Peter, Iames & Iohn should cast out any kind of spirit notwithstanding the like incredulity, and omission of ••asting and prayer. Yea all other Christians whatsoeuer should also in like manner. For what should hinder them, if they haue no impediment? And what impediment can they haue, these two being onely proper to the nine Disciples? See now how pro∣uidently you tie these words to the Disciples onely, permitting larger power to all other Christians then to them. The contradiction you here charge me with is lame. It is palpably false, that 1 pag. 49. of the Doctrine au••u••h, there are some kind of spirits, which the Apostles (with all their power) could not possibly expell, but by prayer and fasting. Of this very errour I do by sundrie reasons from pag. 44. of the Doc∣trine▪

vnto page 48. confute Stapleton and Thyrcus, which notwith∣standing you charge vpon me, & againe sticke not to say, that Sta∣pleton, Thyrcus, and my selfe agree herein, so shamelesse are you. But specially you make your selues merie with a cōtradiction, pag. 111. 112. I answere, The Disciples their not expelling the diuell out of the Lunatike, when they were destitute of miraculous faith, letteth not but that by miraculous faith they could expell any diuel. These I trust may agree together, without cutting the throat one of ano∣ther.

That which you talke of helping their weake miraculous faith by fasting and prayer, is already answered. Further, I shewing that fasting and prayer were not required as helpes in this place to miraculous fa••th, say, that Miraculous faith is of that kind, which is giuen without means to certaine men: whereupon it must needs follow, that there being an Apistia, an vtter defect of miraculous faith in these Disciples, it was not to be recouered by fasting and prayer. You answere, It was not begotton without meanes, because it was giuen by inspiration of God. By which you make the holy Spirit to bee a meanes: whereas a meanes is but an instrument: And the holye Ghost toge∣ther with the other two persons of holie Trinity is alwayes a prin∣cipall efficient. Thus you confound heauen and earth together, & make nothing in the world to be done without means: neither any thing in the world to bee more then ordinary: for whatsoeuer is done by the same vsuall and neuer ceasing meanes, must needs bee reputed ordinarie. There be few places in the fielde more repleni∣shed in the spring with stincking nettles and weedes, then your whole booke with such poyson full Hemlockes as these. But with all we haue a Discourse of an Habituall & Actuall miraculous faith: whereof the habitual is begotten by the Spirit and the word. Seeing therefore these causes cannot alwayes be effectlesse, and that they be euer working in the Church till the end of the world, it cannot be auoided but that Miraculous faith should be in the Church for euer: And the rather if we consider, what by your saying miraculous faith is: which you define to be nothing els, but an vnd••uted perswa¦sion, by which we firmly beleeue, that there is nothing impossible to God: But all the faithfull do vndoubtly beleeue this, and therefore we haue still Miraculous faith remaining amongst vs, and shal haue so long as the Church soiornes on earth: yea the very diuels beleeue this and so hauing miraculous faith, by your leaden rule shall bee workers of true miracles▪ I adde, they which were endued with the

miraculous faith, had besides the perswasion of Gods omnipotencie, an vndoubted perswasion of the will of God, for the effecting of the wonderful matters, which besides or contrarie to nature they attēp∣ted for the good of the Church. Now for as much as the know∣ledge and assurance of the said will of God is not to bee had from the word, therefore the written word is not the onely ground▪worke of miraculous faith, neither doth it come by the hearing thereof, as you affirme. For Actuall faith, you will haue it a speciall motion from the spirit of God, raised vp extraordinarily, whereby the action of faith shall not proceed from the Habit as from the next cause, as the action of iustice cometh from the habit of iustice, and so in all other qualities of that kind, but there shall be something in Actuall faith extraordinarily more then was in the Habituall. If a man had your sharpnes he might quickly go beyond Actius▪ Nauius, that cut the whetstone in peeces with his rasor. For the increase of miraculous faith by means, it is but needles to stand vpō it, cōsidering we affirm an vtter defect therof at this time in the disciples, not some coue∣red sparkes remaining in them, to be raised into flames by fasting and praier. For true miraculous faith how litle soeuer, is able with out these helps, to atchiue her desined worke. But then you will say, yea in effect do say, that the Apostles did superfluously ioine praier with it. I answer, no more superfluously, then the Church doth ioyne Sacraments with the word. Faith of it self is sufficient, to ap∣prehend Christ vnto saluation, and this faith is begotten by the word: Yet Sacraments haue their necessary vse, not to inable faith to that, which it could not with out them, but to confirme and strengthen it to doe her worke more cherfully, and with fuller assurance. Praier is the general instrument to be vsed in all holy workes what soeuer: and therfore the Apostles had warrant for their praier, & were free from all will-worship therin. I omit here for breuitie fiue of your slanders, and two contradictions where∣with you charge me, my selfe being not author of any one of the contradictory proposions.

I prouing that these wordes in S. Mathewe (this kind goeth not out, &c. belong not peculiarly to the Disciples, say, that if our Saui∣our had rebuked them for not fasting & praying, they might haue excused their want of time, you trifle exceedinglye about this: at last you affoord vs this worthy answere, that considering our Sauiours staying in the mount (which for all the circumstances you can alleadge can not be long) they had time ynough to pray. Antiquum obtinct Crito,

you must run your old byas, & impudently flap vs in the mouth with time for prayer, whē the question is of time for fasting and prayer. Againe, you wil haue these words, This kind goeth not forth but by fa∣sting and prayer, to be no sever all reason rendred by our Sauiour, why his Disciples failed in their purpose: whereas we haue shewed, it is a di∣stinct thing from Miraculous faith, and not necessarily ioyned with it: and therefore not to concurre in making one reason with the same▪ Moreouer say I, ••f the Apostles in each weaknes of this faith, must of necessity haue betaken themselues to fasting and prayer, they should haue bene a whole day about a miracles the exercise of fasting requiring this space, which would haue bene great hinderance to their speedy tra∣vell ouer the whole earth. You answere, This is Iudaisme. Belike also it is Iudaisme for Christians to pray▪ because the Iewes did so. But vn¦derstand, good Reader, that the practise only of such cereremonies as the Lord appointed to be a difference betweene the Iewes, and other people, is Iudaisme, not the exercise of such duties, as be com∣mon to both. That which you doubt what should become of the other part of the day, if the diuell should be cast forth before noone, beseemeth men which acknowledge no other seruice of God, but for their owne turnes. Is there no duty of thanksgiuing? no request for strength to the party dispossessed? no desire that the eye-witnesses might profit by it? you would haue Christians serue God, as the dog his maister for a bone. The rest is vnworthy to be repeated, & so was this, but that I would giue the Reader a taste. But what say you, that wil not haue a fast to continue for a day▪ to A Walker, alias Io. Deacon? who in a booke of his called the Footpath to fasting, saith▪ that in the day of our fast, we must be exercised in hearing, applying, and praying for the rem••uing of God his iudgements, euen from morning to night? Do I (you false tongues) in pag. 48. and 49. of the Doctrine say, that the Apostles should haue stirred vp their weake faith by fasting and prayer, when I spend those whole pages to proue the contrary▪ O palpable slaunder, and extreame impudencie! Likewise you say, I affirme else where, The Apostles faith was so strong as it needed no meanes to stirre vp the same. And I would tell you, you say vntruly, but that your skore is so full that now you be desperate. Of these two bastardly propositions, conceiued and brought forth by your selues, and not by me, you frame a Contradiction: saying therupon, that I will turne, ••re I burne, yea with the turning of an hand, turne the cat in the pan: and then you tell my pupils, they may be pestilent proud

of such a turne-about tutor. Here wee may beholde, as your honest dealing with me, so your eloquence and modestie.

Besides, I auouching the Apostles strong faith after Pentecost, able for miracles whatsoeuer, and therefore vnlikely the Lord should appoint a peculiar course for them, for so short a time as from his transfiguration till then: you collect from hence the weaknes of their faith till Penticost: which I graunt you, and more then that, namely, that their miracu∣lous faith was vtterly extinct at this time▪ And therfore no vse of fa∣sting and prayer for the extraordinarie work, but onely as it serued to the vsual maner of the Church in this case. But you wil proue the apostles miraculous faith might faile a••ter Pentecost, because their faith failed sometimes in doctrine and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 That we may vnderstand your meaning, what do y•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Doctrine? what by iudge∣ment? Doctrine vsuall▪ is publike teaching and instruction▪ Iudg∣ment priuate thinking and opinion. Did the Apostles erre in pub∣like teaching? You saye, The Apostles and bretheren which were in Iud••a, thought the word of God was not to be preached to the Gentils. You ground this ou•• of these wordes▪ And when Peter was asc••n∣ded to H••erusalem, they of the circumcision contended against him. VVho contended with him? The Apostles, say you, but without any warrant from the text. It seemeth S. Luke hauing mentioned the Apostles in the first verse, doth of purpose in the second vse these generall termes, They of the circumcision, to distinguish these contenders with Peter, frō the Apostles. It may be the Apostles did not yet ••o clearly vnderstand this mistery, yet it is not likelie they were in this ca••e no more but equall to the weake brethren, whereby the•• should ioyne in contention with them. Grant we al∣so an errour here, it was only in iudgement, not in doctrine. And as for Peters not going rightly to the truth of the Gospell, it was not error either in doctrine or iudgement, but a timorous dissimulation for the time. Iohn his falling downe before an Angell, was errour through sodaine passion, not proceeding from setled iudgement, much lesse auouched in publike teaching. Considering therefore these places proue not that the Apostles erred in doctrine and iudgement, and that the Lord doth principall•• promise that the Spirit of truth should l••ad them into all truth: and bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had told them, whereupon they be called Skilfull Maister-buil∣ders, and the Church is said to be built vpon the foundation of the pro∣phets and apostles. It is admirable you dare so considently auouch such an assertion, vpon so little or rather no warrant▪ and of so dan∣gerous

consequence. You childishly cauill at my speech, where I say, Their faith did not faile them, after they receiued the holy Ghost in That f••••nesse: as if I had attributed such a fulnesse to thē, as is not inci¦dent to a creature: and yet I expresly distinguish it by note of re∣straint That fulnesse, that is, such a plentifull measure as I had spo∣ken of before. Such an one, as was said of Stephen, ••hat hee was ful of the holy Ghost: and of Paul: and of Elizabeth, when shee brake forth into that heauenly salutation of the blessed virgin, that she was filled with the holy ghost. The same is said of Zacha••y when he prophecied, and of the Apostles, that they were filled▪ with the holy ghost. And all these in the Concret▪ but in the Abstract without all limitation to haue the fulnesse ••f the Spirit, belongeth onely to a diuine person, the Father▪ the Sonne, and the holy Ghost▪ So that whatsoeuer person hath the simple fulnesse of the Spirit, the same is God, as well as hee who hath the fulnesse of the Godhead. Of Christ his fulnesse (to whom the Father hath not giuen his Spirit by measure) do all the elect receiue, not the fulnes it selfe, but grace for grace, that is, graces or gifts of the Spirit heaped vpon graces: euery one according to the measure of the gift of Christ, some euē vntil their cup runne ouer. All which discourse when at last you conclude, that howsoeuer the Apostles were subiect to errour, yet they could not pos••iblie erre s•• long as they heard the voice of Christ▪ and but followed the onely directions of the spirit of truth: And that they did neuer vniuersally erre: Moreouer, that they did neuer ••••cline from the foundation it selfe: & lastly, that they w••re recalled from their e••r••urs•• what singular thing do you ascribe to the Apostles, that is not com¦mon to all beleeuers? Are not the Apostles to be preferred aboue all other Ministers of the Gospell, and beleeuers since theire dayes? Yet you seeme to put them in the very same ra••ke▪ Nay, you say in the top of the same page, that there ••e some F••st••noni••s of the Apostles, which onely but slipped from humane infirmities, and that these (••ow glorious soeuer in shew) are not the testimony of Iesus, & ther∣fore not the spirit of proph••cie. you speake here very daungerously, that I say no worse.

You argue the defect of the Apostles miraculous ••aith, from their praying in working miracles, which rather is an argument for the con¦tinuance of it. For if it had ••in vtterly extin•• it had not bene to ••e obtained by prayer▪ but if you say Prayer declareth the ••eaknes of it, and that you meane such weaknesse, as without prayer ha•• not beene able to effect the worke, it is false 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath beene oft ••e∣membred

vnto you▪ but if you take weaknesse for some lesse measure of cheerefulnesse, which had neede be stirred by inuocation of Gods holy name, I graunt you such a weaknesse, but this is too weake to strengthen any whit your cause. you charge mee falsly in saying, I denie that the apostles faith might & did faile before they were filled with the holy Spirit. I know not how oft I affirme this, which you say is the very point I denie▪ Neither do I say▪ it was but fortie dayes betweene Christ his transfigi••ation, and Pentecost. I do writtingly let passe ma∣nie of your lies▪ it is a trouble to repeate them. you see no inconue∣nience to approper these words, This kind goeth not forth but by fasting & prayer, to the Disciples themselues: whereas if fasting and prayer had beene necessarie as helpes to their weake faith, that could not stand which our Sauiour hath immediately before affirmed, that so much ••aith as a graine of Mustard seede should be able to do the greatest miracles. Howe this distinction of diuels is to be vnderstoode, wee haue sufficiently declared in the Doctrine. you make a wonder∣ful partition, when you interpret This kind, only to distinguish diuets from other creatures. The nature of a partition is, that the thing which is parted should be common to all the members. as in this place, creatures going out is the Generall agreeing to both the Specials, in this sort. Of creatures that go out of man some are diuels, and they go not out but by fasting and prayer: some are of other kinde, and these of what nature soeuer goe out of a man without fasting and prayer Wha••▪ is man now become a cage for all creatures▪ Indeed the old Philosophers had woont to say, that Man is a little world: but ••ou will giue vs a sensible vnderstanding o•• it, if horses, be ar•••• and lyons, fowles, and creeping things of all kind, may haue an ha∣bitation in him. You haue beene so carefull all this while to free man from possession of diuels, that in the meane season you haue made ••im a fo••••est to containe all sauage beasts in. I pray you what kind of creature doth lodge in your owne breastes? But you say▪ Th•• kind cannot be referred to the diu••ls amongst themselues, because they be▪ all of one kind as angels be▪ and also men. Profoundly sure▪ as if kind did onely note essence, an•• not sometimes quality and condi∣tion▪ you brought vs euen now an example of threwes, The best of this kind is sh••••mish ynough wherby you said, wom••n were seuered from men by the•• fore or kind▪ Is difference of sexe difference of Essen••••d So 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speake of doceitfull men, This kind of men is not to bee tru∣sted▪ of fl••tterers and ambitious persons This kind of men speak•• all to please those in authority▪ of such as haue made ship wracke o••

a good conscience, This kind of men groweth worse & worse. Now tell me, you Answerers, whether Kind will carie no other sense but that, wherewith you cauill as beseemeth fresh Sophisters. Againe, it is admirable, you could find no other similitude to declare the di∣stinction of diuels by, but onely the whole state of this kingdom of En∣gland, comparing our most gracious Soueraigne, Gods Lieutenant amongst vs (I tremble to speake it) to the Prince of darknesse, and all the inferiour honourable orders of Dukes, Earles, Lords, Iudges, Iustices, Knights, Gentlemen, yomen, &c. to the lower sort of diuels. Could any men forget themselues so much, as that against all good maners, against honesty, against Christianitie, yea, against nature it selfe, which hath printed in the minds of subiects all loyall and re∣uerent respect towards their most worthy Soueraigne, and in the hearts of inferiours all dutifull regard of their honourable Superi∣ours, that you shoulde vtter such blasphemie against Gods sacred Ministers, and so noble and so flourishing estate as this is? He that priuiledged this, deserues hee should priuiledge no more. You thought to lade your Exorcist with the enuy of so odious a compa∣rison: but all wise men will see, your selues are the Exorcist, and all the rest of the persons in your books, whom ye make to speak what and how ye please: and therefore whatsoeuer they offende, they ought to be whipped on your backs. I take not vpon me to define of the seuerall orders of diuels farther then the sacred word of truth is my guide. You contrariwise, that you might oppose your selues against me, sticke not to bend your forces against the verie Scrip∣tures. For you will haue nothing now amongst them, but a meere confusion, and a state without all order: notwithstanding our Sauiour teacheth, that the power of darknesse is a kingdome: that there is a Prince of this kingdom called Beelzebub, and inferiour degrees cal∣led his angels (which whether they be all of them equall, or no with out distinction or difference in any respect whatsoeuer, you should haue considered from these words, He taketh vnto him seuen other spi¦rits worse then himselfe, & not vainly to haue trifled about the word Exusia) that there is a kind of policie of concord maintained amōgst them, whereby this kingdom is vpholden. These things are plainly taught, and are such as no Christian may gainsay, yet you would o∣uerthrow all this, striuing for such a blended mingle amongst them, as is vtterly void of any the least distinction. But it is a true saying, Fooles whilest they labour one euill to shun, into the contrarie presently runne. VVhereas in these words, This kind goeth, not forth

but by prayer & fasting, I haue obserued foure thinges: That there are two kinds of diuels: That one is more difficultly expelled then the o∣ther: that the child was possessed with one of the worser kind: that thence partly it was wherefore the Disciples cast him not forth: you returne, They which want arte to analyze the Scriptures, may here learne to be∣butcher a text, with Rhetorike ill beseeming vnmannerly clownes. But tell me, is there no difference between Analyzing, and making collections from a text? Prate no more of the extraordinarie faith of the Disciples, except you can make it good by sound reason they were indued with such kind of faith at that time. Our Sauiour faith there was an Apistia in them, a thorough defect, wherby only they failed in that extraordinarie course they attempted.

But now you wil shew the impieties, absurdities and dangers which follow of this doctrine. I ••••st, it is impietie to a••ouch any thing for truth that is not. I acknowledge it is a greate impiety: but this doctrine doth not so. Secondly, Lying wonders are the marks of Antichrist. I answere, you ly falsly, when you make the casting forth of Satan by payer and fasting to be a l ying wonder. Thirdly, it is impiety to af∣firme fasting and prayer (ex operato) may effect such a worke. It is impietie indeed, but you may as truly charge me with this affir∣mation, as you might charge any▪ sound hearted Christian that knowes M▪ Deacon, with affirming▪ that he is an honest man. Fourth¦ly, it is impiety to pr••phane prayer and fasting without warrant from the word. We graunt also this, but withall ioyne vnto it, That it is no lesse impietie to call that prophaning of prayer and fasting, which is warranted by the word, as in this case it is. ••astly, it is impiety (say you) to make prayer and fasting which of God are apprinted to bee helpes vnto saith, a sole meanes without faith for expelling of diuels. I subscribe vnto it and wish with all my heart, that he which saith so▪ may receiue the reward of a deceiuer: but if such cogitation was e∣uer farre from my breast, that such impudent slaunderers might be branded in their forehads with this marke: False accusers of their bre∣thren. I doubt not but you haue read these words of the Discouerer▪ (who neuer speaketh vntruly for mee, whatsouer hee doth against me) M. Darrell confess••th the necessitie ••f faith in the ordinarie means. Your absurdities (for so they are indeed) with the daungers partly foolishly, & partly falsly imagined, what should I vouchsafe to re∣peate them? I will leaue these and such like to the Reader, able now by that which ha•••• beene saide, for all your maske to discerne you.

You vpbraide me with hiding my selfe for feare of perill. I haue learned by the commandement and example of Christ Iesus him∣selfe, his Apostles, and of the Martyrs in all ages, that I may, nay, ought to giue place to the rage of man, especially not forsaking in the meane season any duty that concernes me. Yet that you may know I am not cleane runne away, by that time you haue read my Suruey and this Reply, tell me whether you haue not met with some bodie to cope with in the field. You will not allow Christians, if they perceiue not their first endeuours to preuaile, to betake themselues to fur∣ther humiliation. whereas this is the practise of the Saints, as to con∣tinue their supplications till the Lord haue graunted, so to increase their exercise, the more difficult they proue the Lord to be. First, Dauid besought the Lord for his child, & as it may seeme without fasting: then not obtaining, he ioyned fasting and watching with∣all: thirdly, he continued the like till the seuenth day. Did hee in intend a seuen dayes fa••t in the beginning? Concerning the effi••acie of prayer and fasting, we haue the same Coleworts sod againe. You talke, as if I made prayer and fasting for dispossession, an vnwritten or∣dinance: whereas I onely suppose, that if it were not expresly set downe, yet for that it is to be collected out of the generall places of Scripture, as where the Lord doth summon vs, in the day of our af∣fliction vnto weeping and mourning, to baldnesse and girding with sackcloth: and to call vpon him in the time of our ad••ersitie, and such like: and because also by experience we proue it to be effectu∣all, this were sufficient warrant to vs for the ordinance of God in this behalfe. You might therefore haue spared your paines in proo∣uing the sufficiencie of the worde of God, till you mette with some Papist, in which number I tkanke the Lord▪ I am not.

For your demaunds, If dispossession be now ordinarie, what be the things ordinary in it. To satisfie you (though you litle deserue it) for the medicine, I answere it is fasting and prayer: the operation, is the mightie power and wil of God, apprehended instrumentally by our faith: the ministeriall hand to apply this medicine, is the assembly of Christians gathered for this purpose▪ The theorie or skill to directe this hand, is the knowledge that they bee warranted in so do∣ing from the worde of God▪ the meanes to imprint this skill in those physitions breasts, are the▪ meanes of knowledge▪ hearing, reading, me∣ditating,: the habit ••f this skill is their faith, which is more confirmed by the often practise of the Church in all times. Nowe then, if you cannot see what is ordinary in this worke, bewayle your ordinarie

blindēsse which will not suffer you to behold the truth. That which followeth is no lesse foolish then false, which you taike of faiths wor∣king ex opere operato: as also that fasting and prayer cure by way of miracle: that fasting and prayer is no supernaturall maner of cure: & that if it be supernaturall, then it is extraordinarie▪ Is it possible for men to dote in this manner? But if the light that is in men bee darknesse, how great is their 〈◊〉〈◊〉?

To the testimonies of ancient & later writers alleaged by me, you answer first, that I wrest open their mouths, and make them speak what I please. It is true, they speake what I please, because in this matter I speak nothing but what pleaseth thê▪ but you insinuat that I peruert them. If you could haue shewed one syllable this way, al the world should haue heard of it. Besides, you haue already testified in your former Discourses, that they spake, as I report thē. Secōdly, you say, they speake nothing at all to my purpose in hand. My purpose in allea∣ging them was to shew, first, that men in these dayes may be dispos∣sessed of diuels. Secondly, that fasting & prayer haue bene vsed by the most learned and godly in the Church from time to time, since miracles ceased, for expelling of Satan out of the possessed. Nowe whether they spake to these purposes or no, because your selues haue lost your eysight, let others that can iudge of colours say what they thinke. Your third answere is, that I haue not their owne examples or practse, but only their bare reports concerning the practise of some others cōuersing among them. This likewise is vntrue▪ Tertullian and Cyprian recken themselues in the number of them which did expell diuels. And Chrysostome was present in the congregation, and preached two seueral dayes at least, when publike prayers were made for expel¦ling of Satan out of persons possessed, brought to that ende into the Church at the commandement of the Deacon. And thereforè wee haue these three mens practise. But admit that none of them had made mention of their owne practise, might not their iudgment & coun••el•• that ••eruent prayers a••e to be vsed for the healing of the p••ss••ssed su••••ic••? specially seeing diuers of them adde, that they haue knowne some that haue beene healed by the prayers of the godly. Fourthly, say you, they giue their aduise for the ex••rcise of prayer alone. And this is your fourth l••e, for some of them mention prayer & fasting. Thus much for reply to ••our generall answeres, let vs nowe heare those which be particula••. To Origen you answere, that ••e insinuateth ••••mply the supposed ••fficacie of fasting and prayer, but putteth downe no practise of it as of a perpetuall ordinance. Marke how false lyers saulter in their

speech. Did Origen suppose such an efficacie of fasting and prayer & yet not thinke it was Christs ordinance, and to bee vsed? Whence could it haue efficacie, but from Christ? Or to what purpose was ef∣ficacie, if to no vse? He therefore that acknowledgeth the lawfull efficacie of fasting and prayer, doth also acknowledge, that there is an ordinance of fasting & prayer to such an end. Tertullian you say, Speakes of manie pretended deliuerances from Satan, but shew••th not the maner how they were fried from them. What? doth Tertullian in his Apologie of Christianitie against the Gentils, to the whole state of Rome, alleage certaine counterfeit deliuerances from Satan, to countenance Christian religion with? Doth he vse such policie in writing to the Gouernour Scapula, to gaine credite to the professi∣on of the Gospell? Surely you are either not well in your wits▪ or which is worse, you haue for filthy sucres sake conspired to make but meere fables of the great works of God. But he sheweth not, say you, the maner how they were deli••ered▪ Do you sticke at this matter? you will not haue it by miracle in any sort: ••••d therefore, say wee, by fasting and prayer. Nay but, will you say, if it were at all, it was by Miracle, and Miracles were ceased before his dayes. Therefore speake plainely, and tell Tertullian to his face that he lyes, that hee deluded the world with his pretended deliuerances. This is your mea∣ning: and this answer would be short. How Cyprian is to be vnder∣stoode, we shall know (say you) by Iames Pammelius, who telleth v••, That the Fxorcists office was not then in an••e vse of the church, because that office being ioyned with the gift of Miracles, did continue but for a time. I do not alleage Cyprian for the office of Exorcists, but for the casting forth of diuels in those dayes, which he testifieth plainly, say∣ing, And the diuels by torments of w••rds are cast out of▪bod es possessed. To this adde, if you will Pammelius his testimonie, that miracles were then ceased, and so we conclude, That there were casting forth of diuels in Cyprians time, & yet not miraculous. But yet for Iames Pammelius let me tell you thus much▪ wheras you alleage his words for the ceasing of Ex••rcists before that time, and also that a little after he should say, That the crafts and iugling sleights of counterfeit Exor∣cists & coniuring priests, they are long since apparantly ••uident: yea euen to the very eyes of the blind: I maruelled greatly to heare these words of Iames Pammelius: I knew he affirmes the cleane contrary, main∣taining strongly by testimony of Antiquitie that office of Exorci∣sing both of Spirits possessing▪ and in Baptisme. I turned my Cy∣brian, but I could find no such words of his. And therefore either

you haue met with an edition later then the last, or els you are as notable in belying mens writinges as the most shamlesse Papist of them all. To the rest, as Chrysostome, Peter Marty••, Kemnitius, Phil. Melancthon, Beza, Vogellius, Danaeu••, Chassanius, all of them most plainly testifying dispossession, and that by meanes of fasting and prayer, you answere not one word, but for the lenght of their foo∣tinges, referre vs to that which hath beene spoken of the for∣mer. Indeed these treade in the steps of the former, and of all the godly ••earned that went before them & therfore by them we may gesse their footings▪ and so likewise by your three wi••les answers to the three former we may easily gesse what would be your answere to these, namely all the absurd shiftes you could deuise to elude their testimonies, as not hauing in purpose to find out the truth, or to yeild to it beeing found, but by hook and by crook to maintaine your owne giddy fancies, whatsoeuer eyther Scripture, or any o∣ther shall saye against it. What doe I therfore disputing with such companions, which make not truth their end, but some other per∣uerse respect, I know not well, what? Surely Christian Reader, that which I do is for thy good, to laye open vnto thee their vnconscio∣nable iuglings, least by any coloured pretences thou shouldst be be∣guiled by them Did not I well to bind thē to their good behauior by a publike Instrument in their Discourses▪ Thou seest they haue not one worde of truth to say against the practise of the Church of God from the Apostles time till now. But you are weary of these authenticall witnesses and therefore betake your selues againe to your wōted reasonings, where you may haue more scope of words, and more hope to darken the truth.

If, say you, prayer and fasting bee an establ••shed ordinance, then it should be alwayes effectuall. I answere, you seldome bring an If but there is a lye in the end of it. The prophet complayneth, How long Lord? wilt thou hide thy face for euer? Because Dauid obtained not by his sute his Sonnes life, he might by this rule haue bid pray¦er and fasting adue. Infinite are the instances: it is meruaile you could meet with none of them, to cause you to hold in so grosse an vntruth. But I crie you mercy, you meane effectuall in regard of vttermost issue, not of the present time. Now then frame your rea¦son. The ordinance of god is alwayes effectuall, prayer & fasting is not allwayes effectuall, & so not god his ordinance in this case. I answere. if you take ••ffectual for the last issue and such help as is expedient, you say vntruly of prayer and fasting: If you meane Effectuall for

••ensible, imagined and present helpe, then is it as false, you say of gods ordinance. And this i•• you mark it, will su••fice for all you prat¦tle about this matter. So likewise, how Dispossession now is no miracle enough hath beene spoken, except you can bring vs something of more weight, then hitherto ••ou haue done. Further ob••erue that here they spare not to denie (though in as couert tearmes as they can) the witnesse of Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, ••nd of al the rest before alleaged, or that can be. Moreouer, it this will not serue, for compendiousnesse sake, and more securitie of their cause, they deny the conclusion. I he argument is, If dispossession by prayer and fasting be miraculou••, then Tertullian, Cyprian, Chysostome, and others wrought miracles, when they expelled diuels after this sort: but this is false: and therefore the first. To this you answere•• Secondly, if it be true that here tofore or nowe spirits bee expelled by sole prayer and ••asting, th••n is the worke a mi••acle: which is the contrarie a••firmation to the conclusi∣on. When you ta••ke of sole prayer and fasting, you haue a secret mea¦ning of your owne of sole prayer without faith. Concerning which I tell you again, that if M. Walker & you haue such a kind of prayer and such a kind of faith, as vsually are separated one from another, you may do well to dispute of such matters betweene your selues, for my part I allowe no such prayer, neither doth the Church of God.

You argue, that dispossession is not by historicall or temporary faith, because God hath appointed it to miracul••us faith: which thing if it had beene proued in the beginning, we had done long ••ince. Further, you see not wherein i••sti••ying faith should be ••ar b••tter then T••mpora¦rie, if this doth ••ast out diuels, as if to cast out diuels out of the bo∣••ies of men▪ were all in all Besides, if historicall ••a••th be suff••c••ent, di∣uels might cast out diuels. But what if they will not? you a••e neuer a whit the nearer. Such trumperie sha l haue no other answere▪ ••or answere to your fourth reason I say, a reprobate may app••••l end the mercies of God the Creator▪ but not of God the Redeemer, And such apprehensi••n for the e••ecting of Satan ••ay •• ffice.

You slaunder me▪ when ••ou say, that in disp••ss••ssion of Sommers we purposely prayed to teach the b••••olders, that the w••rk ••as ••ff••cted by the onely ••ower of him t•• whome w•• put vp ou•• pray••r. ••u•• what is it to say you sclander me? You make no more account to sc••ander me, then to fillip me. Againe I doe not say, that parties b••w•• ••••hed haue no wa••rant from the Scripture t•• fast & pray••, (as is apparan•• in the place by you quoted, where I counsell them to this hol•• exer¦cise) but only, that ther is not such expresse mention in the word

for the curing o•• the••, as for parties possessed. And therefore all that is an idle dispute which you purpose for diuers pages together in this matter▪ ••ou would ••a•••• haue me a companion in this wick¦ed a••••ertion, which your selues maintain as is apparant afterwards. But note (good reade••) fo•• an egreg••ous blasphemy, that these Ans¦werers make t••e Lor•• guiltie of the horrible sins cōmitted by the wicked in s••••king to the ••••ueil for help in their miseries. For how doe they proue it to be an absur••itie to cond••mn•• p••oples going to the diuel for helpe? Surely thus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••t be a sinne to s••eke help of the diuel, we shall make the Lord ginit•••• of this sin w••th u•• whom it can••ot be done. Thou ••eest what blasphemie this proposition cōtaineth▪ for it plainly affor deth that which before I ••ay▪ And the Conclusion, to wit, it is no ••••nr e to ••••eke ••elpe of the diuel, is a conclusion of monstrous impiet••e. ••o where they would proue, There is no warrant from the worae for prayer and ••asting to be vsed in behalfe of parties bewitched, there argument is of this ••orte. ••f there be no wa••rant ••rom the word tha•• sole prayer & ••asting haue any power of themselues ex opere ••perato, to r••••o ••e ••upernaturall ••udgem••••ts of God, then there is no wa••rant for parties b•• witch••d to vse fasting and prayer as h••l••efull in this ••ase▪ But the first, say they, is true, & therfore the sec••nd. ••ut what do you sticke at parties bewitched? You should haue inferred generally, there is no warrant nor vse o•• fasting and prayer at al for any thing ex opere o••erato. O men str••••ken with the blindnes of Sodo••e ••••ich before the d••re, seek the ••••••e, and cannot ••ind it. Is it your foolish¦nes, th••t you cannot tell what you auouch? Or your shamlesnes, that you ••as••e not t••oug•• you•• names should be dese••uedly odi∣ous to all? Or is it, t••at you do so far ••e••pise all the learned of this land, that you thinke there ••s not one man able to di••cearne such prod gious falshood ••uch ••retched persons would rat••er be c••n∣futed with a three cor••ed w••ip, the•• by the writinges, or wordes of any. An•• if that will not serue, it were ••eete such order mig••t be taken with you t••at the Church of God sustaine no damge by you.

Whether I haue so fondly trauersed this question of ••oss ss••o•• as you sa••, I lea•••• it to the g••dly learned to determine, to whose cen••ure I willingl•• submit my sel••e bot•• in this & in al other m•• writings But as for your iudgments I passe ••ot. First make it appea••e▪ you haue eyes in your owne heads▪ before ••ou take vpon you to tel•• what is straight, or croked in ••e then ••anctifie ••our mouths b•• c••nfessing, your lyes, your sclaunders▪ your blasphemies, before you giue sen¦tence

of any my doings. In the mean season, if you will needs be bar king, I will find such a bone for you to gnaw on, as shall bee fit for your chaps,

Concerning the counsell I gaue for fasting and prayer, it was grounded from hence: that in all iudgements (of which kind posses∣sion is) we are called to humiliation, for which I cite in the margine an induction of diuers examples. To which you answere first, that with out particular knowledge of the iudgement, prayers could not be made in faith to remoue it: which is one o•• those Axioms that neuer fails you, such an one as Ahabs prophets were inspired with, whē they counsel led him to warre against Ramoth. Shall not the poore countrey sicke man pray to God for some comfort in his distresse, because he doth not know particularly the nature of his disease? Secondly, that the quoted Scriptures onely testifie the peoples ••umiliation by pray••r and fa∣sting, so oft as any strange iudgement was inflicted, but proue not essenti∣all p••ssessions and disposs••ssions by those means. yet they proue the coun¦sell I gaue was warrantable, and this I content my selfe with. It is e∣nough if my poore premises afforde mee one naturall and orderly conclusion at one time. Euery mans Cow can not bring forth colts▪ as yours do.

To conclude, you tell vs your great confidence in the cause, which no man needs to doubt of, if he consider your former arrogant bold nesse: nor much maruell at as strange, if he call to minde your vn∣credible blindnesse. But if your learning and consc••e••ce were more, your confidence would be a great deale lesse. Then you in••erre of the premises, That if there be no possession, nor dispossession nowe by fa∣sting and prayer, how greatly they haue erred that haue auouched it, and how much they are to be blamed which cannot endure it should be impug¦ned: But contrariwise say I, if all these things be true, which you de∣nie, as hath beene prooued by stronger reason, then you possibly withstand, what doe ••ou deserue which haue troubled the Church with newe and singular opinions in these points, and in broaching them, haue offered to the world to choke them withall other verie many grosse, fantasticall and impious absurdities? and yet you dare intitle your fooleries, The infallible truth, and such, as Glory & praise is to be giuen to toe Lord for these his lately reuealed counsels by you con∣cerning these intricate questions. O intolerable proud ignorance! Haue you by late reuelation cleared these intricate questions? Indeed your assertions be late▪ for they were neuer heard of in the Church be∣fore: but they were neuer reuealed vnto you by the Spirit of truth,

but by that lying spirit, whose image doth liuely appeare almost in euery argument you handle. And yet that my selfe be not onely iudge, let any man of vnderstanding waigh with equal balance that litle that hath beene replyed, & compare it with yours, & then giue sentence: whether any since the time of our peace by our gratious Queene, professing the gospell, hath published any writing of diui∣nitie that doth come neare these your treatises in number of vn∣sound potions, in misconstructions & wrestings of Scriptures, in absured collections, in impudent reiecting the authoritie of the an∣cient, in shamelesse pretending the names of good authours against their owne meanings, in childish stumbling in the first rudiments of Arts, in most frequent lying and slaundering, and which is grea∣test of all, in dangerous and scandalous assertions mixed with some notorious blasphemies: and then it may be you shall carie the bell of al that haue written in our times. Great cause there is we should all make bonefires for the publishing of your bookes, or rather of your published bookes: but especially M. Bishop, who got the priuiledge ad imprimendum solum, I beleeue he beshrewes your fin∣gers for it.

Notes

• pag. 8••▪
• Detect. pag. 127.
• ••g. 83.
• ••ct. pag. 37
• pag. 84.
• pag. 85.
• pag. 86.
• ••ag. 87. 88▪ ••9. Matt. 12. 43
• Matt. 12. 45
• Mat. 9. 25.
• pag. 90.
• pag. 91. 92. 93.
• ••ag. 94.
• Matt. 17. 21
• Deut. 29, 29
• ••ag. 95. 96.
• Matt. 17. 21
• Math. 7. 17.
• Ioh. 33. Ioh. 6. 44. Act. ••7. 31
• pag. 99
• Matt. 6.
• g. 100.
• Iath. 19 99 〈◊〉〈◊〉 12. 27 Act. 16. 13.
• 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• ••th. 7▪ 22
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 103. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 104.
• pag. 105. 106.
• pag. 107.
• H••b 3. 1•• & 4. 1. 2.
• Matt. 17.
• pa. 113, &c.
• 1. Cor. 12, 9.
• pag. 114.
• pag. 116.
• pag. 117. 118
• Matt. 17. 21
• pag. 119 120. 121.
• ••ag. 122. ••g. 123. 124
• ••••g. 5.
• pag. 125.
• Act. 11. 2.
• Gat. 2. 13. 14
• R••ue. 19. 10
• Ioh. 16. 13 & 14. 26. 1. Cor. 3. 10. Ephes. 2. ••0.
• ••ag. 127. &c
• Act. 7. 55. & 13. 9. Luc. 1. 41. Act. 2. 2. 4
• pag. 133.
• pag. 135. Act. 4. 29 30. & 9. 40 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 8. 8
• Matt. 17.
• Doct. pag. 46, 48 Doct. 49 pag. 136
• Doct. p. 51▪
• pag. 137.
• ••ag. 138.
• pag. 140. &c
• Matt. 12. 25 &c. & 25 41.
• pag. 154.
• pag. 155
• pag. 157. 158.
• Diseo. p••. 45.
• 159,
• ••. 160
• ••am. 12. ••, 17.
• ••. 161. &c,
• a. 22. 12.
• ••ag. 167
• pag. 168 Matt. 6.
• D••ct. ••8
• pag. 169.
• ••yp. Epist, 55 & 76▪ edit. ••ammel. Antuerp. ••n ad. b. Petr•• ••elleri 1589
• pag. 170.
• 2. Sam. 12. 18
• pag, 171, 172, 173.
• pa. 174. 175
• pag. 176.
• pag. 177
• pag. 179.
• pag. 182
• pag. 183. 184. 185
• pag. 186
• pag. 188.
• pag. 19••
• ••. 191, 192 ••93.
• ag. 194. 95, 196.