Pag. 3 , 9. 10. IT is a cunning sleight to beguile the simple with , in propounding to satisfy the world for any thing that hath bene sayd concerning the poynts and parties controuerted , wholy to omit the books calledthe Triall , the Detection , the Narration of seuen possessed in Lancashire , contayning in them matters of fact , and onely to bend your forces against one Treatise called The Doctrine , &c. The reason of which omission , Christian Reader , is this . To disproue things done , so euidently knowne to so many eye-witnesses , were all one as to perswade that white is blacke , that fire is Ice , that it is dark night in the cleare sunshine , which whoso should endeuor would rather be esteemed of all a mad man , them gaine any credit to his cause . But in points and controuersies of doctrine there was more hope to deceiue . For here through multitude of words , ambiguous tearmes , fraudulent courses of reasoning , false coloured sentences , wrested and mistconstrued scriptures , abused authorities of famous men , and such other deuises , not onely the ignorant & vnable to search the truth should be blinded , but also many learned , which before had not welghed these thinges , neither perhaps would take the paines to sift and try them to the proofe , might be striken with some amase & doubt . Only they whose iudgments are seasoned with sound vnderstanding , which at first sight are able to discerne the cro oked writings of peenish and foolish sophisters , and know without book the scope of most mens writings in account amongst the learned , woulde giue true sentence of the cause , and condemne these opinions of ignorance and errour . But the number of such is smal , and therfore by these Answerers was lesse regarded . This , whatsoeuer they pretend , was the true ground of their choise , yet though they will not Pag. 3. meddle with the Triall , and Detection , they must bicker a blow or two with the Epistles of both . To let passe the disgraces , wherewith they lade them : for the Triall I may say ( for therof am not I author ) I doubt not but iudiciall men wil acknowledge more sound learning in some fewe lines of it , then is in the whole bundle of your foolish Discourses . To come to that which is material , you charge the Triall but with two things , & in this charge make four lies , such is your compendious facultie . First , say you , it matcheth your pretended miracle , with the true miracles of Christ . The words of the Epistle speaking to the L. Popham , bee these , And concerning Epist. pag. 4. as highly the glory of Christ our Sauiour , as it doth the credit of a faithfull minister ▪ Is here any comparison of miracles ? Is here any mention of miracles at all ? Doth it say any more , but this cause being about a worke done in the name of Christ , doth as highly concerne Pag. 4. Da●r●ls trial in the Epist. pa. 8 his glory , as my credit ? Again , say you , the prelats are charged with the sin against the Holy Ghost . Thus speaketh the Epistle , that the prelates ( which now set themselues against dispossession ) be guiltie of this vnpardo nable sin , I wil not say . If I wil not say , be I do say , then the prelats are charged with this sin . Out of this branch spring two other , That you report the Epistle to labour the L. Chiefe Iustice to recouer himself with speed from that fearefull sin , wherunto it seemes he is fearefully falling : and that he would reuerse iudgement passed against me . He which writ the Epistle did not dote , as you do , to entitle his Honour , an vpright , and worthy , and a righteous iudge , to desire and vrge his Lordship , to releeu● the oppressed innocent , specially , to take to heart the slanders giuen out of the works of God : and within a few lines after to place him in the verie brinke of reprobation . Neither doth he perswade to a Reuersing of iudgment ( for there was none passed , as the Authour knew well enough ) but to a second hearing , as Felix heard Paul the second time . Now then let the Reader tell me , if you bee not pithie lyars , that can comprehend so many in so little roome .

For my Detection you charge the Title as vndutifull against her Maiesties iudiciall proceedings , for that it is so sharpe against M. Harsnets booke . It is more then I knowe , or can beleeue , that her Maiestie commanded M. Harsnet to write : or that her Right Hono. Counsell inioined him so much , or that the high Commission laid this vpon him . It may be , if his owne vainglorious humor , which euer tooke pleasure to be biting of others , did not prick him forward to this busines , yet that the B. his maister , of his priuat authoritie , did set him his taske , tosalue this owne credit , and of such as had ioined in disgracing the truth . But I hope one may reprehend some priuat actions of the B. without any vndtifulnes to her maiesties proceedings . You then are malicious pikthanks , which haue nothing in your mouthes , but Ad leones , ad leones , He is not Cesars friend .

Pag. 5. For the Epistle , you charge me with reviling the B. I answere , It was not anie contempt or malice towards his person , or forgetfulnesse of any dutie to authoritie , that moued me to such seueritie , as I vsed , but onely feare least otherwise I should haue failed in dutie towards God . Those which sinne , saith the Apostle , reproue openly : And 1. Tim. 5. 20 Tit. 2. 15. Matth. 3. Matth. 23. reproue with all authoritie . And when I heare Iobn Baptist calling the Phari●ees Deceiuers , and Generations of vipers : when I heare our Sauiour most sharply reprouing them by the names of Persecutors , serpents , generation of vipers , the children of hell , painted sepulchers , and such like : And S. Paul speaking to Elymas , O full of all subtilty , and Act. 13. 9. 10. Philip. 3. 2. Tit. 1 , 12. 1. King . 18 Act. 23. 2. Tim. 4. 17 all mischiefe , the child of the diuell , and enemy of all righteousnesse : calling also false prophets Dogges , and the Cretians beasts : yea when I heare Eliiah call Ahab , the troubler of Israel : our Sauiour tearme Herod a foxe , Paul entituling Ananias a painted wall , and Nero by the name of a Lyon : these and manie such other places of practise , giue me some light for vnderstanding the precept , and teach me , that albeit in my priuate cause I am to vse all mildenesse and gentlenesse , yet when the Lords truth is interessed and slaundered , his greate mercie obscured , and that of purpose and wilfully , neither one Sergius by Elymas hindered , but manie thousands turned backe from beleeuing his works , from praising him for them , and profiting by them , in this case the man of authority is no lesse to be stricken with the edge of reproofe , then he that is in inferiour place . Nay , rather the publike person , then the priuate man , by how much his example is more dangerous , either forcing or alluring great multitudes to imbrace his errour . And this doth not hinder but with Dauid , pag. 6. & Stephen , and our Sauiour himselfe , and all the holy martyrs of God , wee should pray for our persecuters , and blesse them which curse vs : for reproofe and hatred be not necessarily linked together , but Reproofe is a notable remedie to preserue from hatred , according to that the Lord saith , Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy bea rt , but Louit . 19. 1 thou shalt plainly rebuke thy neighbour , and suffer him not to sinne . But this is your maner , to huddle vp all things in a confused heape together , and that which is spoken with certaine prouisoes and limitations , to alleage it as a bare and simple commaund . Thus much for the Epistles .

pag. 7. Yet before you come to the Treatise , you will admonish the Reader of two cunning sleights of legerdemainc , practised by me , throughout that my Pamphlet : whereof the first is , That I haue slily ou●rslipped what is materiall in M. Harsnets Discouery , as , to make good that distinction of Mirandum & Miraculum , which he hath dashed to nothing . I answere , that as becommeth true natural Leopards , you cannot change your skinne , but you must needs be lying heere , as almost euerie where else : for I haue replied to M. Harsnet out of Augustine and Danaeus , Detection , pag. 6. shewing an apparant difference betweene a Wonder , and a Miracle . And further haue I answered in suruey of your tenth Dialogue : from whence I pray you tell M. Harsnet , that if he remember the difference betweene Genus and Species , he may feele with his finger that a Wonder and a Miracle be not all one . And if this will not suffice him , demaund of him , whether Antichrist by the power of Satan worketh not wonders : and whether he esteeme all those wonders to be true miracles . And as touching your selues who accord with M. Harsnet herein , what say you to these words of your owne ? The Dialog. pag. 209. & 310. diuell may worke wonders , as Simon Magus hath done : but hee can effect no miracles . And in another place . A thing effected by essentiall meanes , howsoeuer it may be a wonder , yet no miracle in any respect . How can you possibly free your selues here from a contradiction ? And this is my reply to your first instance . Againe , say you , M. Harsnet accusing verie orderly by Sommers testimony , mine owne answers , and seuerall depositions : this his materiall proceeding is pretermitted with silence . What ? haue I written a Detection of his lying Discouerie , and haue touched nothing concerning Sommers testimonic , mine owne answers , and the seuerall depositions ? Then haue I written nothing at all : For there be scarce anie lines in it , which concerne not one of these three . But thereof let the world Iudge . I can say no more . I hope I haue shewed how indirect a course it is , that Sommers by threats , flatterings , and promises of maintenance shoulde first he brought to accuse himselfe , after me , and then to witnesse against me : that mine owne answers should be curtalled , and stretched after the Discouerers pleasures : that the depositions which were against their likings should be suppressed , and others published , so far forth , as might giue occasion of doubt to the Reader . What dare not you auouch , which are so bold to affrme that , wherof the contrary appeares in euery mans hand ? If your meaning were that in some particular I haue pretermitted this , which your words will not beare , then you should haue done well to haue named that Particular , as the nature of an Instance requireth , which seeing you haue not done , it is thereby plaine , your selues be rather guiltie of legerdemaine , then L Those pages which you quote in the margine , I grant I passed ouer , for that they concerne others , and S. Hars . Disc. 28. 29. not my selfe , as also because the matter was friuolous and vnworthy answere , as may there appeare , vrging the being of a thing by no other reason , but because such a thing might be . But marke what a faire threed these men haue spun , and how seeking to discredite my Detection , they haue brought not a little credite vnto it . For I will hence proue , that in my Detection I haue not let passe one materiall point of M. Harsnets Discouery vnanswered : and namely thus . If Darrell haue in his Detection let goe anie materiall point of the Discouery vnanswered , then would the Discoursers haue giuen some instances of such omission , where they endeuor to proue the same by instances : But the Discoursers instancing to that end , haue giuen not so much as one instance of such omission : Ergo Darrell in his Detection hath not let goe any one materiall point in the Discouery vnanswered .

pag. 8. 9. My second cunning sleight by your saying is , that I disgrace by all meanes Sommers testimonie , produced against me but extoll it for me , vpholding by it the signes of Possession & Dispossession . That no credit is to be giuen to his lying testimony , I auouch it indeed in the place by you cited : but where do I vphold the signes of possession & dispossession by Sommers his testimonie , wherewith you charge me ? why do not you also cite some place for this ? You thought if one part of your assertion were true , the Reader would pardon you for the rest . It is such nouelty for you to speake truth , that any litle is to be accepted at your hands .

From the Epistle of the Detection you come to the Narration , the proofe wherof you will not haue to depend vpon report of the fact pag. 10. 11. but vpon continuance of Essentiall Possessions and Dispossessions in these times . A ridiculous thing , and to be hissed at . The reason why you eschew to deale against matter of fact , I haue sufficently declared in the beginning . Wel I wil follow you in your course , & come to your Answere to the Doctrine . Which treatise , to admit such an hotchpotch as you say , ( though sober men will iudge it , set downe in such order as is conuenient ) it is not for euery one to cooke his matters so artificially as your Discoursing gallimaufrey is : but the more skil it wantes , the more credit for truth it ought to haue , seeing it tasteth simply as bare nature giues , without commendation of any slibber-sauce . First for Essentiall possession you reproue me or at least Exorcistes , for arguing from the word Possession out of the Geneuah translation , pag. 12. 13. whereas I no where , nor any man else , inferre essentiall inherencie from the word Possession , as I haue shewed in the Suruey of your Dialog. Discourse : yet is the same confuted by the Originall , by Erasmus , Beza , Castalio , and Montanus . But this was your voluntarie perhaps , before you came to your musicke , now let vs beare your set and meditated song . Wheras I argue a possession thus : The pag. 13. 14. actions or pasrions which the parties endured were supernaturall , and therefore proceeded from supernaturall causes . You deny the actions were supernaturall , and that for three reasons . First , Naturall causes haue had more wonderful effects : which I think I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of your seuenth Dialogue . Now therefore in one word , Is nothing supernaturall in any creature , which is exceeded by anie other worke in nature ? Then the foming , wallowing , the breaking of chaines asunder , reported of Demoniakes in the Gospel were not supernaturall , because something more wonderful Dialog. Dis. 204. may come from a naturall cause : as that mentioned by you of the little fish Echneis , which ( being but halfe a foote long ) if shee but once cleaue to the side of a ship , wil compel it perforce to stand still , notwithstanding the violence of the wind or oare . I am ashamed to heare men thus absurd . You might haue considered , had your wits beene your owne , that these actions or passions are not therefore supernaturall , and so called , because they are more wonderfull then anie thing issuing from nature , which a naturall would scarce affirme ▪ but partly because they are ( for the most part ) aboue that , and more wonderfull then the nature of man can send forth : and partly in respect of the supernatural cause from which they did proceed , namely , the diuel . Secondly , say you , One cause may bring forth sundry effects , and one effect may proceed : from sundry causes . Doubtlesse happy might that man be , that could apply either this One cause , or these sundry causes , to this cause we haue in hand . Is this your proposition , If one cause may bring forth sundry effects , and one effect proceede from sundrie causes , then the Actions or Passions reported by me in the Demoniakes were not supernaturall ? It is wonderfull what a man shal gaine by disputing with you . For now haue I learned by your priuiledged proposition ▪ Not only these actions of our Demoniakes not to bee supernatural , but also neither any action of any Demoniake that either the Apostles , or Christ himselfe deliuered . Thirdly , The like effects issue from diuers diseases . I answere , If your skill in physicke be so great , tell vs , I beseech you , from what disease so many & strange effects might arise , as are witnessed to haue bene in these parties : & what disease it was they had ? Whether had they the Lunacie , or the phrensie , or the Epilepsie , or the Mother , or it was some Convulsions , or Crampe that they had ? Name the disease . And if so manie effects doe not proceede from one disease , as it is very likely , declare how manie diseases they had , and what they were . And whether they had all the diseases you mention : their swelling arising from the Mother : their foming from the Epilepsie , their extraordinarie strength from mania , &c. and so had a compounded disease , percase of as manie seueral diseases , as they had seueral effects . Tel vs also whether you haue seene one partie afflicted at the same time with Melancholy , Lunacie , Phrensy , Epilepsy , Mother , Convulsion , and the Crampe ? Besides , whether you haue known such an one , diseased with all these grieuous maladies , restored againe naturally to his health in one day ? When you haue resolued these doubts , we wil hold our selues satisfied for this argument . In the meane season it remaines for all your answere , in as ful force as euer it did . And here we may obserue , how all that they prattle both here and else where of diseases ( whereby they woulde perswade , that the passions of the Demoniaks were not supernatutural , but might wel proceed from some natural disease ) themselues do ouerthrow , in affirming they are Counterfeits .

Againe , I shewing that The toyes and fooleries , and blasphemous speeches vttered by the parties in their supernaturall passions , could not come immediately from God , and good Angels , and therefore no doubt from the diuell : You answer first , They were not supernaturall effects : but this is your Cuckow song , oft auouched , neuer proued with anie reason that might so much as beseeme William Sommers , one too renowmed in his time . Secondly , that this supposed impossibilitie pag. 15. for either God , or good Angels to effect any such fantasticall , vaine , and filthy effects , is too grosse and absurd . Indeed you are the Maisters of absurdities , you may bestow one where you wil , as this is a notable one and not to be named , that one should imagine the most Holy Lord , and his holy Angels should immediately by themselues worke filthy effects . The blasphemies which arise from hence are not to bee remembred . There is neuer any filthinesse committed , but either by the filthinesse of our corrupt flesh , or by the working of vncleane spirits : farre be it from vs , we should once let it enter into our thoughts , that it did first issue , either from the fountaine , or from the streames of puritie . The Lord his iudgements are tied to a seemely maner of effecting , rightly vnderstood , which you denie : that is , that all his iudgements should bee effected by meanes best beseeming their nature : as iudgements of committing sinne are wrought by sinfull meanes , the Diuel , and wicked men , and such like , and not immediately by holy meanes : for this was to confound light and darkenesse , holinesse and sinne together . It is lamentable that anie carrying the name of Ministers amongst vs , should be so impiously blind : and yet more lamentable , that they which will sit at the helme , wil suffer such impieties to be offered with their authoritie , to the world . Thirdly you answere , That these vncleane effectes do no more argue an vncleane spirit , then those holy effects , as Confessing of Cor. 11. 4. Christ , and Expounding the Creed argue an holy spirit . As if you had cleane forgotten , The diuell can transforme himselfe into an Angell of light . If you had remembred this , and your old crosse-row , That there is no reasoning from contraries in common attributes , you would neuer haue bewrayed such intolerable babishnesse . Lastly , say you , All this inferres noreall inherency , because the diuel can worke greater matters then these remaining without : concerning which , wee Pag. 15. 16. wil see ( God willing ) in that which followeth .

Againe , wheras is vrged , the Diuels entring in , & going out of the partie possessed , you answere , All these speeches , and whatsoeuer text can possibly be alleaged throughout the whole Scriptures , concerning either Angels , or Spirits , or Diuels are to be taken metaphorically : and for ●ob . 1. 7. Matt. 12. 43 P●t. 5. 8. this purpose you bring the diuels compassing the earth : his walking through drie places : and his roaring like a Lyon . As if because in these places there is some Metaphor , therefore all other must bee metaphorical too . Nay then let vs conclude , because these texts of Scripture be metaphorical , therefore all the Scripture is metaphoricall , and not onely those mentioning Angels and Diuels . And so we shal reuiue the wickednesse of the Libertines , of the Family of loue , and of the Suenckefeldians , acknowledging no literal sence of the Scripture , but a figuratiue meaning inspired into themselues , which only with them is the word of God . When you disputed of the Serpent in Euahs tentation , you contended indeed The Serpent was onely meant figuratiuely , yet seemed after to reiect this opinion , and I liked well of it . But I crie you mercie : now I vnderstand you more fully . Wel then , the Angel Gabriel came to Marie , and brought tidings of her Luc. 1. 30. Luc. 1. 12. &c. Luc. 21. 43. conceiuing the Sonne of God , was this done Metaphorically ? Was there also no such thing literally done , as is reported the same Angel spake to Zachary , concerning Iohn the Baptist , whom hee should beget ? Was that in figure too , that the Angels comforted our Sauiour Mar. 9. 22. before his passion ? Belike when the Diuel cast the child some time into the fire , sometimes into the water , there was no such matter Mar. 5. 7. indeed , but onely by way of Metapher . And when the Diuel cried , What haue I to do with thee O Iesus the Sonne of the most high God , this voice was Metaphoricall . Howsoeuer these and many like Scriptures are canonized by you to bee Metaphoricall , yet your selues Metaphor , are most properly a couple of the absurdest Dunses that euer put pen to paper . You goe on , and labour to ouerthrow the literall entring of the Diuel , because in Marke it is said , There was a pag. 17. 1 19. Mar. 1. 23. man in the Synagogue in an vncleane spirit . If the words ( say you bee taken literally , then the man was essentially inherent within the diuell . I answere , Neither are these wordes taken literally , neither for this cause is the entring of Satan , mentioned else where , to be vnderstood figuratiuely . The same thing may bee , and is vttered sometimes by figure , and sometimes by proper speech . One while our Sauiour Christ cals himselfe The way , and a Doore : In another place he saith , That they which beleeue in him shall not perish , expounding in plaine tearmes that which is spoken by similitude else where . As for this Scripture , To be in an vnclean spirit , is not , as a thing contained in a thing containing , as water in a vessell , and such like , but to be in the power of an vncleane spirit , as our vulgar tongue expresseth fitly , when we say , Such an one is in a Feuer . M. Beza , in opening the meaning of this speech , vseth this selfe same example : and you your selues call it , A very apt resemblance . Seing therefore it fitteth so wel , let me demaund of you , when we say , A man is in a Feuer , whether you thinke the feuer is within , or without him ? You had thought to haue played you with this feuer , but it shaketh you a little better then you were aware of . For it plainely declareth , that the natural meaning of the wordes , notwithstanding they bee figuratiue , doth note vnto vs an inbeing of the spirit . But you adde out pag. 20. Luc. 4. 33. of Saint Luke : There was a man in the Synagogues which had a spirit of an vncleane diuell . This translations say you , is tolerable , if by the word Spirit we vnderstand not the simple essence , but onely the impulsion , motion , or inspiration of the spirit . I answer , we may , I graunt vnderstand by the word spirits an impulsions motion , or inspiration , so wee doe not separate this Impulsion and motion from the reall presence of the Spirit . As when we talke of the vnderstanding of a man , wee know that vnderstanding is one thing , and the Man another , yet do not separate betweene the reall presence of these two , but ioyne them together . And to this effect Caluin writeth on this place : This speech ( saith he ) is as much as if Luke had said , This man was moued by the inspiration of the diuell : for by God his permission Satan had possessed the powers of his soule , that he might enforce him at his pleasure , as wel to speake , as to other motions . And therfore when Demomakes speak , those very diuels , to whose rule they are permitted , both speake in them , & by them . Caluin then graunts an Inspiration , but ioyned with the diuels presence : These men make a diuorce betweene Inspiration and presence , as if these two could not abide within sight one of another . The inspiration of the diuell is within , therefore his Essence is not : which is as much to say , Because a mans braines be in his head , therefore his wit is in his heeles . But to let this passe , this onely I say to you , which by Spirit here vnderstand only the motion , inspiration , or instigation of the spirit , and affirme , it is grosse to vnderstand spirit Essentially , that by this your goodly exposition , this man must bee dispossest of a motion , and not of a diuell .