The four Cardinall-Vertues of A Carmelite-Fryar: Observed by Sir Edward DERING, Knight and Baronet: And by him sent back again to their Author Simon stock, alias Father Simons, alias John Hunt, alias Anonymus Eremita. 2. TIM. 3. 13. evil men and Seducers shall wax worse and worse; deceiving and being deceived. LONDON, Printed by John Raworth, for Richard Whitaker, and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls-Churchyard. 1641. To the Right Honourable N. N. Sir Edward DERING Knight and Baronet, wisheth happiness here, and hereafter. MAy it please your Honour. In that which is so serious as Religion I dare not be a trifler: nor can I love a man that is so. Divinity is ever Grave, neither toying nor yet sullen. Piety and Gravity are twin sisters, both descended from above, owning their high birth from the supreme Sanctity and sovereign Majesty of Heaven. As they come from high, so they descend low, even to the centre of a Man; and take possession of his heart: there they dwell, and from thence they send forth, (like Rivers from their springhead) many notable assurances of their residence there. While that some vent Levity and Wickednesses because they have received Religion no deeper than into their brain. Many men are Christians according to a certain common since they have of Religion. Now in the brain of man, The common sense and the fantasy are near neighbours, hard is the condition (and yet the condition) of some, with whom fancy leads the way. These Brain-Christians, are so much in skill, that they forget Practice. With the head a man may know, even unto others wonder, and his own pride: But with the heart a man believeth Rom. 10. 10. unto righteousness: If this store-house be well filled, The mouth will show the abundance Matth 12. 34. of the heart within, and then with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. If coldness or emptiness be there, you may find it in the dull Rom. 10. 10. and barren language of the Speaker. The most certain and most absolute symptom of a good heart, well filled, is Truth of what the Tongue delivers. A good man out of the good treasure of the Matth. 12 35. heart bringeth good things. Now nothing is good but Truth. Truth, it is one of the glorious titles and attributes, which our Savi●ur (in whom was found 1 Pet. 2. 22 no guile) hath taken to himself I am the Way (saith he) and the Truth, &c. All Fraud, Falsehood and Lying are from Hell. When the devil speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he Ioh. 14. 6. is a●lyar and the father of it. He began with a Ioh. 8 44. Gen. 3. 4. lie at first, and it hath been his own ever since. Verum Evangelium veritatem amat, veritatem colit, veritate alitur & Augel●i● (saith your Andradius) The true Gospel loveth the Defens●. Trid. l. 2. Truth, honoureth the Truth, hath nourishment and growth by Truth. Maxentius Johannes affirmeth very well, Nullum vitium est, quod non sumat à mendacio initium, neque vir●us cujus non sit origo veritas. There is no vice, which hath not beginning from a lie: nor any virtue, whose original is not Truth. If after this, you find me wittingly false in any assertion, or in any authority which I shall produce, your Lordship hath here (I have sent it) wherewith to stop shame into my mouth. But if by these following papers your Honour find your old Anonymus false and foully false, on whose side must he be, and they that follow him? Christ and Truth go together; woe to the adverse party: they are enemies and must be one day under foot. When this old soldier had often pretended much valour to encounter any man that I should bring; and had almost persuaded me into an opinion of his Ability: At last, in near two years' time being pressed by me, he concluded, plainly, ●o discourse with none. Some were married. I undertook for e'en unmarried! Others were skilled in the Eastern languages! I undertook that no word should be instanced, but English and Latin. Then it was dangerous! I undertook that also upon my own head. Lastly, it was to no purpose! And indeed I found it to no purpose to press him farther. Quo front! quâ fide! with what forehead he made these darings, with what faith he hath performed them, I well remember, and can justify: Herein he is guilty of much untruth. Yet lest he might seem to have a guilty cause, as well as a pretenced valour, his pen was ready against all men, and he offered me the choice to design unto him, upon what particular subject he should write. I answered him, that I was so confident and so assured of the Truth and goodness of our Religion, that I gave him liberty in all the latitude of Controversies betwixt us, to make his own choice; even there where he thought himself ablest, and the best provided: only desiring that he would be curious to pick out his best arguments, and that he would be brief. He promised a speedy discharge, and made his present election to prove Saint Peter's supremacy: I said I was glad he had pitched on a point so material, but (said I) you have taken one as difficult for you to prove as I could wish. It is now a twelvemonth since, yet hath this man herein been as mute as death. Is he not guilty of another untruth? I am little at leisure, and the least of any in skill for these Eristicke discourses: but I serve Truth, and that will prevail. I do therefore again and again exact and challenge him to perform his undertaking in that subject, and with that brevity as was promised. In the mean time having perused four several Treatises of his writing, two in print, and two under the pen, I have good cause to ask, How well he can justify what I find in them; not in the whole Treatises (they are not of such weight and worth) but in four passages taken severally, one out of each Treatise. Nor will I pick out that which is slight and easy: Nor will I take less than what I find concerning one entire passage and the particular subject there handled. The Reasons why I am bold to present the trouble hereof unto your lordship's hand are few, yet enough to exact this of me. Four they are, and very powerful with me. Duty, Gratitude, Good manners, and Piety. First in way of Duty I do owe the First fruits of my pen, in matters of Religion, unto the person (if he were living) but now unto the happy memory of***************** Here were som● lines that would by circumstances have expressed the name of that honourable person, whom I choose rather to omit. This first motive leads me fairly on unto my second, which is Gratitude to your Lordship in whose Noble Person, and dear love, his Lordship now lives, more than in all the world beside. Your Favours, great and many, all free and noble, like yourself, have obliged me to this Gratitude. And among many other, the many earnest and affectionate wishes, zealously and prayer-like expressed, for my embracing that Religion, which your Lordship hath with strong belief for true, lodged in your own soul, though in truth, to the great hazard of that excellent soul. An high obligement as it is: and able from a duller spirit than mine, to extort this Gratitude. In the next place Good-manners have impelled me hereunto. Some conferences this old Gentleman hath held with me in your honour's presence to whom he is well known. Wherefore (and for other reasons also). I hold it a degree of Good-manners, not to run this into his hand, without saluting your Lordship and as it were first asking leave. Lastly Piety to God, and to the Church my mother, and piety due unto your lordship's soul, whose great abilities and rich endowments of mind, may herein examine these, and hereby, take occasion to examine other Truths, and then clear away the misty clouds of Popery: which are far more dangerous and deadly to your soul, then unto millions beyond Sea, who either have not the like abilities within, or so fair daylight abroad, by the free Gospel revealed, as is unto your Lordship in this blessed island. God eternal grant that you may see, and know his Truth: and not like those whom the Apostle expresseth to be Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of Truth. And this for one only Advocate and Redeemer Jesus Christ his sake, shall be prayed in your honour's behalf, by Your Lordsh. ever obliged and most humble servant to his power, Surenden-Dering, 28. Jan. 16.39./ 40. Edward Dering. TO Anonymus-Eremita. Sir, BEcause you have pleased to magnify your own undertakings (concerning me) unto others, as you have extolled some performances of your own, concerning others unto me. I may justly think you have bragged concerning them, far beyond Truth, because I well know that you never had a shadow, much less any substantial ground whereupon to say or think me a Romanized Catholic, or ever in any degree inclining thereunto. Yet P●●●st charge you, in the way of your own glory, to have reported me Proselyted: I have the warrant of a great and a Right Honourable person for what I infer. Leave painting a bad cause, and leave that common trick of your Tribe, to slander such as are free of Conversation with you, as if they were ready to warp, before your reasons can wa●me them. Although our Religion be gentle, yet is it firm: though it be meek, yet it is constant. A behaviour strange to misreport those for your own, whom you have tried and found impossible for you to move. Impossible for you! I alas: it is not be strength of an Anonymus, can draw unto the fair but false Tents of Rome, a weaker man than myself (though weak us any) who hath a vigilant Conscience to keep him wary of your assaults. I am not so credulous to think every Stocks a Stoic. But I forbear this jarring expostulation: Yet am I hear appellant to cite you to a trial, wherein I engage myself to manifest the indiscretion of any man, who shall report or believe me Romanized in my Religion. This trial shall be fairly made, by calling you forth to justify some passages of yours which I shall make choice to question. Four Treatises of yours, I have hastily coursed over, Two in Manuscript, Two in print. You may be sorry if I find fraud in the first, Folly in the second, railing in the third, and Blasphemy in the fourth. If there be less, I am much mistaken. These passages which I mean, are first concerning Altars in the tenth Chapter of your Caveat for a friend, a Manuscript you sent me, wherein you corrupt one Text and misinfer two other. The second in another Manuscript, by you sent, entitled, A Tract of Prayer to Saints: where your eighteenth and last Chapter, is so far from wisdom, learning and Reason, that no one of all your proofs alleged, are wise enough to find the way to the mark you aim at. The third is said to be printed at Roan 1623., and by you inscribed Jesus, Maria Joseph. This you gave me, wherein I find most foul, base, and absurd language, and that both causeless and untrue. Lastly, in your appeal unto King JAMES, printed (under the name of John Hunt) 1620 I find Blasphemy, or else I know not Blasphemy when I hear it. If I make these things appear, what are you? and what is your Religion? If I fail, you may show me the shame of my silly undertaking. The Treatises being yours, my speech will be particularly directed to yourself: yet not so much to your person as unto the language which I find. In the last place you have by way of epiphenonema, that which you did lately brave me unto, but afterward as poorly did fly from: I mean three propositions which being made good with solid Truth, and full proof, I have promised to become a Papist: but you refused them the other day being (I suppose) conscious to yourself, either of your own weakness, or of theirs. If these propositions cannot be maintained by you nor for you: then reform yourself: Reduce them whom you have misled. Give God the glory, and do not scorn the Truth of his advice, who it in him that is Truth itself, your faithful and assured friend, Edward Dering. Surenden-Dering, 28. Jan: 1639./ 40. SIR EDWARD DERING TO THE READER. BEfore the perusal of this short Treatise, I entreat my friendly Reader, to take notice of this preamble. The Motives inducing me to write these following sheets, being (as by themselves it will appear) sudden, and after the purpose once entertained, the work (not worth the name of work) as suddenly performed, I sent them) according to the date) in an Epistolary way to a noble personage to be surveyed by a Priest styling to himself Anonymus Eremita. The Reasons hereof are in my two following Letters expressed, whereunto (without further circumstance) I refer. At the latter end of July last, I had from the Priest, that which he called an answer: upon perusal whereof, I found the old man Verbosum & delirum. I found his labour to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and himself {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. I presently did snatch a pen, and began to press a short reply to his tedious answer: But two warrantable reasons have delayed my reply, and a third for the present, hath quite diverted it. First, I had then upon my hand an answer to be discharged to another of his infectious tribe: But a man (indeed) whose abilities, and whose modesty of Language do yet seem to be of a much better temper, than this nameless hermit hath discovered. The due dispatch of this, did justly foreslow my reply to this dull Carmelite. Immediately upon, or before that Answer issued from me, it pleased the country to honour me with their trust unto this Parliament. So that being now divided from my Library, and not daring (in point of honesty) to withdraw myself from these services (for it is duty better shown, with weakness to undergo my part, rather than deceitfully to desert them) I have held it fit to lay by that reply which I can not now intend, and which must of necessity be fruitless in being made unto his, so rude and so barren answer. These two reasons do (as I conceive) justly warrant my delay. Whilst thus I am necessitated, a judicious and true friend, upon sight of the wretched, and despicable babbling, in the rescript of Anonymus, gave me this advice. That the Priests answer being worthy of nothing but contempt, and being too tedious for a present reply, (especially in the midst of better avocations) I should publish this Quadrilogus which I formerly sent unto him, and thereby provoke him to thrust forth his elegant answer: whereupon the world (without more lines) may judge on which side Truth and Modesty do dwell. I have followed this counsel: Here is my adventure in way of challenge, I expect that he should be at charge to publish his own answer, and then (presuming on better leisure) I hope in a reply upon his babbling, to show that the poet's contempt will be a just Encomion for this old friar, O solâ fortem garrulitate senem. 20. March. 1640. SIR EDWARD DERING TO Anonymus-Eremita. YOU challenged me to set down in writing three propositions, which being by me performed, you then fled from your own undertaking: here they are again. 1. The Pope hath by divine right a supremacy of power in matters spiritual, which ought to be universally believed and obeyed, as of Faith. 2. The Romish mass is a Sacrifice both proper and propitiatory: for the present, and the absent: for the living, and the dead. 3. Our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles did teach the same points of doctrine which the Church of Rome doth affirm, and which are denied by the Reformed Church. Prove and maintain these positions with clear and full authority: and hear I give you my hand, that you shall then have my heart, unto the Roman Church. Edward DERING. REcensui Tractatum hunc doctum admodum, acutum & Orthodoxum, eúmque dignissimum judico qui, (in honorem Authoris, Antagonistae verò infamiam, & in utilitatem publicam) typis mandetur. April 13. 1641. Johannes Hansley: R. P. Epis. Lond. Capel. Domest. CHAP. I. Of Fraud. THAT which last came shall be first § 〈◊〉. served: The Treatise last sent unto me by you, shall be first accounted unto. Nor will I pick out a word or a sentence to cavil on, but fairly and entirely take all your discourse therein, concerning one single and several subject. That which I shall here first insist upon, is your particular Caveat concerning Altars. Being indeed a several Chapter, and the whole discourse you have, upon that particular subject. Give me leave to divide your Chapter into parts: that so I may with less confusion give account to each several Section. In your Treaties inscribed A Caveat for a friend. This following, is your tenth Chapter. Anonymus. (A) THeir Judge saith. (B) We Christians have an Altar, whereof they have not power to eat, who serve the Tabernacle, Heb. 13. 10. (C) Again, If thou offer thy host at the Altar▪ and there thou remember that thy brother hath some thing against thee, leave there thy offering before the Altar, Matth. 5. 24. And so say Roman Catholics. (D) Protestants, either have none, or make it a thing indifferent, either to have or not to have, as appeareth by their practice. And these who have, make not use of them according to the institution of Altars. For the use of an Altar is to make sacrifice upon: the Altar being the proper place of the sacrifice: as witnesseth King Edward: and the Protestant Lords of His council in their Letters, for the taking down of Altars, and setting up of the Table in stead thereof, in John Fox. Pag. 1520. Sir Edward Dering. (A) THeir judge saith, &c. meaning the holy Scripture: thus you begin six Chapters §. 2. together: proceed, scoff on. We thank you for such scorns: And with due reverence do acknowledge this our divine infallible judge: wondering that any Christian should decline or slight the written law of Christ our Saviour. Go on to disclaim for your judge what the holy Ghost hath written: Renounce your part, and deny the judge to be competent or sufficient. Did you not forget Saint Paul, who telleth Timothy, that The holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. are able to make him wise unto salvation,— and that they are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect. But belike you find that this judge is ours in a double right, one is the due of his place; The other is because he may justly be called our judge, for that he voteth for us, and against you. But notwithstanding that you would pull down holy Scriptures from the Bench, yet learned men on your side, do hold them there, whether you like thereof or not. Learned Andradius writing against Remnitius in defence of your Tridentine council (lib. 2.) plainly acknowledgeth the holy Scripture for judge. Scripturam Sacram Controversiarum judicem constituimus. We do constitute the holy Scripture judge of Controversies. He could not say less, yet for fear he had said too much, he denieth this judge to contain all things necessary; so would have us to take it for a judge and no judge: or in brief for an imperfect or insufficient judge. A judge, but such a one, as faileth in things necessary. O the wisdom of God: how that must suffer by the impious folly of men! God himself hath given us a judge: But Andradius with others, as Dominicus Ba●nes: Melchior Canus: Cardinal Hosius: Doctor Stapleton, &c. say that this judge is deficient in things necessary to salvation. Is not this plainly to accuse the wisdom of God, as if he could not, or his goodness as if he would not make our ●●dge sufficient? Do not the holy Scriptures abound with some things not necessary for salvation? and hath the wisdom of God left out necessaries? Andradius subjoineth again: Libri Sacri, praecipui sunt Controversiarum judices. The holy Books are the principal judges of controversy. Mark how unsteady he is: the Scripture is judge of controversies: yet defective in things necessary: and yet the principal judge of controversies. Thus A double Iam. 1. 8. minded man is unstable in all his ways. But your more learned Bellarmine (de verbo Dei) saith Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima, tutissimaque est. The holy Scripture is the most safe and most certain rule of belief; and again, Sacris Scripturis— nihil est notius, nihil certius. Nothing is more known, nothing more certain, than the holy Scriptures. If then the holy Scriptures be the most known, and most infallible Rule of Faith (so much do Bellarmine's two places infer) If they be the judge, the chief judge of Controversies (so much Andradius two places do determine) leave then your hollow and unsavoury scorns, and submit yourself and your cause, unto this holy and heavenly judge. But I fear you had rather hold company, with Piggius, Ecchius, Cusanus, Pereonius, Norris: and others of your bent who (in Tertullian's phrase) are Lucifugae Scripturarum owl-eyed in Sunshine, runaways from the brightness of the Scriptures. Men that loved darkness, rather than light, because their Ioh. 3. 19 deeds (their doctrines) were evil. These men to bring a disregard upon God's Sacred Word, give it profane nicknames. Lesbiam Regulam. Evangelium Nigrum. Theologiam Atramentariam. Nasum Cereum. A Lesbian Rule; The black Gospel; Inky Divinity; and a Nose of Wax. You, in as hateful a way of irrision have invented (or do pretend to have invented) another byword for the sacred Word of God, and have with smiling scorn (for which you may chance one day to howl) derided it by name of sheeps-clothing, intimating it to be the wearing of Wolves, what shall sheep now clothe themselves withal? I pray (without scorn) show me what other clothing you have for the sheep? But I must not stay thus at the threshold, the door is open, and I now am entering within the walls of your discourse: yet again saluting you at my entrance, with thanks, for yielding us the honour, and our true Right, in having the holy Scriptures for our judge. But take heed of this and consider it, next time you shall read Saint Paul (to the Romans) who will there put you in mind of that great and terrible day, when (as he Rom. 2 16. saith) God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to his Gospel. Which Gospel you dare not deny to be a written Gospel. Take heed then how you mock our judge hereafter, since that you hear your own doom shall be by Jesus Christ the eternal judge, according to our present judge, The written Gospel. Anonymus. (B) WE (Christians) have an Altar, whereof they have not power to eat who serve the Tabernacle, Heb. 13. 10. Sir Edward Dering. THe title of your Chapter, and your pretention is to prove the use of Altars even by our judge the holy Scriptures. This Text you bring against us, and for yourself Habemus Altare, we have an Altar, saith Saint Paul. If there be no more but this, The Text hath as much for us as for you: we also have, and ever had this Altar. But that which you assume to prove, and would pretend to be hereby proved (or else you say nothing to the cause in difference between us) is, that we have not such Altars as you have. How is this? we have Altars figuratively and improperly so called: But you have Altars, material Altars, and properly so called. Here then lies all the difference: and upon this hinge the whole cause doth turn: whether Saint Paul do here mean a material, visible and a proper Altar! You have daily sacrifice, properly called sacrifice (as you say) and therefore by the necessary consequence of Relatives, you must have (or say you have) Altars properly so called. This is the true state of the Difference between us: you may believe Cardinal Bellarmin who takes it for granted on both sides Altaria non consuevisse erigi, nisi ad De miss. lib. 1. cap. 16. sacrificia propriè dicta. The Altars use not to be erected, unless for sacrifices properly so called. And again, Sine De cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 4. Altari non potest sacrificari, without an Altar, sacrifice can not be. And a third time in his first Book of the mass. Nunquam Altare propriè dictum erigitur, nisi ad Lib. 1. c. 14. Sacrificia propriè dicta. An Altar properly so called, is never erected, but for sacrifices properly so called. Now you pretending that your Sacrifices are proper Sacrifices must contend for Altars properly so called. The nature of Relatives is such that as Sacrifice & Altar, do in general relate each to other: so of necessity, if one be proper the other must be proper: if one improper the other improper also. If then you prove not the propriety of your Sacrifice, you are gone for your Altar: and if you prove not your erroneous transubstantiation, you are gone from your proper Sacrifice. But you have not gone this way, and therefore I will not strive to refute you this way. But briefly meet and close with you upon this Text alleged: which Text if it prove an Altar properly so called, the cause is yours: and I will yield myself to Rome. If this Text do not prove it for you, nor any other: Do you give glory to God, and submit unto our judge. But by what means shall we now try the true sense of these words, and the meaning of the Apostle (or rather of the Holy Ghost) herein. That this may appear: I offer you afair trial, and judges undeclinable. 1. The plain series, & scope of the context itself. 2. The opinion and interpretation of the ancient Fathers. 3. The opinion and confession of your own eminent Doctors: and others within these last 600. years. First. The Text is not for you: for we differ not about having and not having an Altar; but §. 4. (as is said) about an Altar proper for Sacrifice proper: wherein the words of this Text come far short: and the sense of this Text is far more distant. Our {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} our holy Table is a holy Altar: yet neither your Altar, nor our Holy Table here intended by this Text. What then is the meaning of Habemus Altare? mark the context. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. We have an Altar, whereof to eat, &c. You will not say, Saint Paul here meant the eating of a material Altar. Be it, of stone or wood, your teeth had need be iron: if you say there is a figure in the word Eat, I say, that must necessarily infer the same figure in the word Altar. If then this Text can not be interpreted of a material Altar, what have you to do, to produce it against us for your material Altars? Let the Apostle expound himself, and he will plainly show you what Sacrifice he would have, and then tell me what Altar must be for such Sacrifice! Presently he begins to apply his speech unto our blessed Saviour, and so annexing his conclusion to his premises (Ergo, &c. saith he) By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of verse 15. praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. Do you mark what manner of sacrifices are here commended unto us? can you find any use of a proper material Altar for them? would you have a visible Altar, for invisible Sacrifice? Beside, it will not be enough for you, to find Habemus Altane, we have an Altar, but you must get a Text Habemus Altaria, we have a plurality of Altars, else your practice will prove unjustifiable, when God with his Quo warranto shall demand of you, as the Prophet enquireth. To what purpose is the multitude Isai. 1. 11, 12. of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord?— Who hath required this at your hand? Secondly. To come to my second sort of proofs § 5. and withal to show you what Altar is here meant: I do affirm, that no one, or not above one of the holy Fathers in the pure primitive Church hath interpreted this, or any other place, to a material proper Altar: But do constantly and generally teach and express themselves that our Altar and our Sacrifices now are rational, spiritual, eucharistical, Invisible, &c. All which shall appear in their own words and language. Saint Jerome (on the 50. Psal.) Sacrificium, id est, confessio ex ore peccatoris: oblatio, hoc est laudatio.— Altare, Fides.— Vitulum laudes.— Victimas; scilicet ut me ipsum offeram. Sacrifice, that is to say, Confession from the mouth of a sinner: Oblation, that is Lauding.— An Altar, Faith— the Galvas' Praise.— victims, as much as to say, that I offer up myself. And again (upon the 25. Psal.) Vnusquisque Sanctus, Altare Domini in se habet, quod est Fides. Every Holy man hath an Altar of the Lord in himself, which is Faith. And a third time (on the 9 of Saint Mark) Altare Dei, est cor bonorum; hostiae & Sacrificia, bona opera fidelium. The Altar of God, is the Heart of good men: hosts and Sacrifices, are the good works of the faithful. Saint Augustine (de civit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 4.) Dei Templum simul omnes, & singuli templa sumus.— Ejus est Altare, cor nostrum.— Ei Sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis, & laudis, in ara cordis igne fervidae charitatis. We are all together the Temple of God, and all of us several are Temples.— His Altar is our Heart.— We sacrifice unto him the sacrifice of humility, and of praise, upon the Altar of our Heart with the fire of fervent charity. Lactantius. (de vero cultu. lib. 6. cap. 25.) Duo sunt quae offerri debent, Donum & Sacrificium.— Vtrunque incorporale.— Donum est integritas animi, Sacrificium laus & Hymni. Two things there are which ought to be offered, a gift, and a Sacrifice.— Both incorporeal.— The gift is Integrity of mind, the Sacrifice is Praise and psalms. For this incorporeal Sacrifice you can not plead any use of a corporeal Altar. Saint Ambrose (upon this very Epistle to the Hebrews) telleth you that your Altar must be invisible, Quia nihil est visibile horum, neque Sacerdos, neque Sacrificium, neque Altare: For nothing is visible of these, neither the Priest, nor the Sacrifice, nor the Altar. Bernard (in festo omnium Scrip. Serm. 4.) up on that Text (Revel. 6. 9) concerning the souls under the Al●ar, saith, Altare ipsum— nihil aliud arbitrer esse quam corpus ipsum Domini Salvatoris. The Altar itself— I suppose to be nothing else but the very body of our Lord and Saviour. So much for the Latin Fathers, and to let you see that the Greek Fathers agree both with them and us, look first in Hesychius Bishop of Jerusalem, (lib 1. cap. 4. & lib. 6. cap. 21.) who will tell you the same that Bernard doth, expounding this Altar to be the blessed body of Christ. Clemens Alexandrinus (lib. 7. Stromat▪) complaineth as we may justly do in these words. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. They will not believe us when we say that an Altar truly holy, is a righteous soul, and holy prayer the incense from thence. So this ancient Father against the Idolatrous heathen, and thus we against the superstitious Papists. Nazianzen the Divine (in his 42. Oration) saith, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Let us Sacrifice, not young Calves, nor lambs— but let us Sacrifice to God, the Sacrifice of praise, upon the Altar which is above, together with the choir that is above.— Let us Sacrifice ourselves to God. The Latin renders it with the celestial choir, that you may know what Above is here meant. Saint Chrysostom will tell you (in his 17. Homil. on this Epistle to the Hebrews) that our Saviour is both Priest and Sacrifice. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} But if our Saviour be Priest and Sacrifice, where is our Altar? Epiphanius will resolve you that (Lib. 2. tom. 1. Haeres.) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} He (our Saviour Jesus Christ) is our Sacrifice: He is our Priest: He is our Altar. There is the word in your Text alleged and there is the sense according to the ancient Fathers, and the Church reformed; which is as they were. In the Third place, that you may see, that a § 6. Prelate in our Land hath said true, concerning the worth and strength of this your argument out of this Text, when he said that yourselves (the Papist) have thrown away this argument as a leaden dagger, of no use in your day of battle: Let Bellarmine be judge, who desirous to plead for your Altars, doth yet dismiss this place thus. Habemus Altare, &c. (Quia (saith he, de miss. lib. 1. c. 14.) non desunt ex Catholicis qui eo loco per Altare intelligunt crucem, aut ipsum Christum, non urgeo ipsum locum: Because there want not some Catholics, who in this place by the Altar understand the cross, or Christ himself, I do not urge this place? And again, (cap. 17.) speaking of your Altars, he confesseth and yieldeth that the Apostles did not use the words Priest, Sacrifice, Temple, Altar, &c. So that when you show any such thing in their writings, you shall withal show Bellarmine ignorant in his. The Divines of Collen (in their Antididagma de miss. Sacrif.§. Posthac.) speaking of this Text and the Altar here intended, do say (Habemus Altare, &c.) in quo & per quod omnes Christiani, universa Sacrificia spiritualia Fidei, Devotionis, Gratiarum actionis, Spei & charitatis Deo patri debent offerre. We have an Altar, &c. On which and by which, all Christians ought to offer God the Father the universal spiritual Sacrifices, of Faith, Devotion, Thanksgiving, Hope and Charity. Your angelical Saint (Thomas of Aquine,) in his commentary upon these very words) saith, Istud Altare vel est Crux Christi, in qua Christus immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo & per quem preces nostras offerimus. This Altar either it is the cross of Christ, on which Christ was sacrificed, or Christ himself in whom, and by whom we offer up our prayers. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury upon this very Text, expoundeth the word Altar to be the very body of Christ: His words are, Tangit consuetudinem legis, & ad spiritalem intelligentiam revocat— licentiam edere de nostro Altari, id est, accipere corpus domini. He toucheth the custom of the Law, and calleth them back to a spiritual understanding— liberty to eate of our Altar, that is, to receive the Body of our Lord. I must put among your Authors the mass of Saint James, which since I know you value highly, I pray answer seriously. There I find both Altar and Sacrifice, thus. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. Grant us O Lord with all fear and pure conscience, to render unto thee, this spiritual and unbloudy sacrifice: Which thou receiving into thy holy, and supercelestial and intellectual Altar as the odour of a spiritual sweetness, &c. Parallel to this, is that in the liturgy of Saint Chrysostom: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. We offer to thee, O Christ, O God, incense, in the odour of spiritual sweetness. Which receive (O Lord) into thy holy and supercelestial, and intellectual Altar. The vulgar Bible Printed at Paris 1573. with an angle Table at the latter end, hath this express declaration of the sense of this Text, Altare nostrum Christus. Our Altar is Christ: referring to this very Text for proof thereof. You may look more in Catharinus, and Estius. Occumenius, Lombard, Gorran, Lyra, and others, for these already vouched do satisfy me. You proceed and I follow you: you arm yourself with another Text, (Matth. 5. 23. & 24.) If § 7. thou offer thy host at the Altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath something against thee, leave there thy offering before the Altar. If this prove your material Altar, or Altar proper, for Sacrifices properly so called: then — Tu Phyltida solus habeto. The Altar is yours. If it do not. If it come impertinent, and nothing near the point in difference for which you do pretend it, indeed you than have lost your Phyllis. If our Saviour do here speak tropically in this word Altar, than your inference from hence is gone. If he speak literally, yet consider when, and to whom he spoke. The Jewish Altar was then standing, and this than might be literal to their ears, which unto future Christians (after his consummatum est) might, and aught to be figuratively taken. The place itself doth clearly show our Saviour here to use the word Altar, as a Metaphor Elegant, plain, and piercing: look the next Verse (being a part of the same Paragraphe, or rather an exposition of this) and you will find there the Way, the Officer, the Prison, the Farthing. Yet you will not infer a material, visible, ordinary, and with us, properly so called, Way, Officer, Prison, Farthing: and why then a material, visible, proper, Altar? But not to let pass a forgery, without branding it, I perceive you are so superstitiously addicted to your Altars, that you force the holy Word of God to speak more for you in English, then ere it did in any other Language. You may do well in time, when you are Inquisitor general, for the making a purgatory table to the Word of God, as hath been done for too many grave and good Writers else. Are you sure you have alleged a true Text? Here I find all couched together in a breath: in one text, Altar, host and offering. Thus you allege, If thou offer thy host at the Altar. Is it your own translation, or have you taken it upon implicit Faith? Whosoever it is, it is Graeca fide: but with no true Faith to the Greek original. I will not contend with you upon the word Offer, because you have had bad leaders in that construction. The Rhemist have done so before you, although the primary sense of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be adferre, and more secondarily ob-ferre. By which reason, and by the clear context of the place, our English translators might well be induced, to render it Bring rather than Offer; The reason may plainly appear, in that our Saviour here speaketh unto the multitude (as in the last verse of the foregoing Chapter, and in the first of this is to be seen) which multitude of the Jews might bring gifts, but surely not offer Sacrifice as you have construed it. But letting these words Bring and Offer pass: § 8. how come you here by the word host between Offer and Altar? If thou wilt offer thy host at the Altar, &c. Is this your Faith, Anonymus? where, and by what means comes this host, so fit in your way, to cozen your English Readers with? will you make the Scriptures speak Sacrifice for you whether they will or no? Beware of Nadab, and Abihu, They offered strange fire, and you here offer strange Levi. 10. 1. Sacrifice. Be not so ready to offer the Sacrifice, but hear the Word of God in its Truth, as our English translation hath it. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, &c. Great odds between bringing a gift, and offering a Sacrifice. Subornation of witnesses (which is a notorious practice on your side, by maintenance of false Fathers, and of false pieces of True Fathers, and by additions, and by subtractions made to their works) yet is not half so bad as to corrupt the judge. You in particular, (your cause being bad) do endeavour to corrupt our judge. The authentic Greek and all Translation that I have seen out of it, are all against you. First the Greek itself, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: next your vulgar Latin, and the two contending Translations of your two succeeding Popes, Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. all agree and render this in Latin: Munus Tuum. The French hath, Tondon. The old Saxon þine lac, the same word for gift as (Luk. 21. 1.) he geseh ƿelegan hyra lac sendan on þone sceoppan. He saw the Rich men casting hyra lac their gifts into the Treasury. By what authority do you leave your public English Translation of Rheims? They rightly have rendered it, Thy Gift. But you Thy host. Who taught you to construe the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by the Latin Hostia? what Grammar, Dictionary, example, or good authority have you for your translation? Is not this sowing of Tares amongst good corn. This Hostia comes ab Hostibus. Hostibus a domitis hostia nomen habet. An enemy Ovid. Matth. 13. hath done this, saith our Saviour, in the Parable, speaking of him that sowed Tares. So this Hostia comes in ab host, from an enemy to Truth, if you loved Truth, you would not, you durst not falsify. Consider you are old, and leave this daubing Ezech 13. 10. with untempered mortar: In the mean time God send them who trust you care and conscience to beware of you. If I speak freely, I cannot tell how to excuse you, or to make this less than a most wilful fraud: the distance being so wide in every Language. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Donum and Sacrificium, Gift and host. You have had no false guides (that I see) to mislead you, here is no probability for a fair mistake. Will you plead ignorance of Greek? Why then are you so bold to be a translator? Yet I cannot deny your ignorance in that Language, until you do write your long counterfeited Greek name aright. I remember well that you told me there was but one Greek letter in difference between the Arian and the Orthodox, one August. 1637. Epsilon you said, but finding my wonder in looking up into your face, you did indeed correct that error, and said it was Omega. Lastly, because since I saw you last, I received from you but three words in Greek, whereof one was unpointed, and another of the three, was so far from Orthography, that it was no Greek. Furthermore, not to teach you (I have more ●§ 9 modesty) but to show you that I have otherwise learned, then as you expound. I do find that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (the word in this text) is derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, just as the Latin Donum from Dono, and because gifts are given and presented with the hand, Pliny Lib 35 cap. 14. doth tell you Graeci Antiqui {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Palmum vocabant, & ideo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} munera, quia manu darentur. The ancient Greeks called the palm of the hand {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and therefore called gifts {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, because with the hand they were given. By this time it appears seasonable for me to use the words of your own Doctor Triple-cord. (§. 5.) All sides agree, that it is most impious to corrupt the words, or true sense of Scripture, by adding, or subtracting, mistranslating, or false interpreting. But you appear guilty of mistranslating, and of corrupting the sense of Scripture, Ergo, All sides, &c. It further appeareth that (setting aside the fraud of your word host) this Text doth not speak of Sacrifice but of gifts: of Gifts brought by the people, not offered, for the offering is stayed: the words of our Saviour are plain: who stops the offering thus— If thou bring thy gift, &c.— and there, &c.— go— and then come and offer: Not as your Rhemist (and you worse than they). If thou offer— go— and then come and offer, &c. Which can hardly be made a sensible period. I have an old Manuscript that concurreth very well herein: it is of this Gospel by Saint Matthew (written before the Bible was divided into Chapters: together with a brief commentary thereon, where the word relinque ibi munus, leave there thy gift, is expounded, Differ offerre: defer to offer: The meaning is that though thou bring thy gift, yet thou may est not offer thy gift, because our Saviour commandeth the offering of it, (not the bringing it) to be stayed until reconcilement first tendered. And then come and offer thy gift, as our Saviour saith. So that your text here alleged, viz. If thou offer thy host, must be new Englished thus, If thou bring thy gift. You saw that from this Altar in this Text, you could by no Analogy prove your Romish Altars, therefore to draw it nearer to you: you thought good to mend the Text: hoping thereby to gull some English Readers, who finding Offer host and Altar, all in a breath, a period, might then swallow you Roman sense in all. Are these your Piae frauds? light and darkness: Truth and a lie shall meet together with the same greeting as Fraud and piety. I can not digest this corrupted Text of yours, until I have made this expostulatory question to you which I find in Athanasius. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. What folly of immodesty is this in you, to speak things that are not written, and to conceit things different from piety. Now the Text is freed, make your best use of § 10. it. If you would prove the point in controversy, why do you not make your inference upon the Text, and so conclude, and tie it to your cause? here is no such work. You do not look (I hope) that I should make your argument for you! If you do, I can make no more but this. Our Saviour preaching of forgiveness and brotherly atonement upon injuries received, biddeth us Leave our gift before the Altar— and be reconciled. So doth our Church when in our approach to the holy Communion we are charged. If any of us— be in maliee, &c.— not to come to the holy Table: Which Holy Table is both Table and Altar, properly a Table, improperly an Altar: primarily a Table, where in a holy and most admirable Communion we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ: Secondarily an Altar, (but improperly so called) where immediately after, We do offer ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice. If you mark it well, you shall find the name of Table in the first age of Christianity to have the forehand of the word Altar. I need not prove this to you, further than by your learned Cardinal. Apostoli non utebantur nominibus Sacerdotii, Sacrificii, Bell de miss. lib. 1, c. 17. Templi, Altaris, &c. The Apostles did not use the name of Priesthood, Sacrifice, Temple, Altar. If then the first age did unlearn the use of Altars, and gave us the use of a Table, what would you prove, unless in your proof you confess the name of Altar to be reducible to the use of Table. The holy Scriptures tell me that the blessed Sacrament was celebrated, at or upon a Table. So Saint Luke (22. 21.) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} on the Table. (And that I might not doubt what manner of Table, this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was, Saint Luke again doth tell me, (16.2.) that Lazarus desired to be fed with the crumbs which fell {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the Table). The same word in both places. I find again that the twelve Apostles did ordain seven Deacons, because they would not themselves intermit their praying and preaching {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to serve Tables. Which Tables you will not doubt were sacramental Tables: could you find two such Texts for your Altars, how quick you would be upon me! But now I suppose you will be quiet. And that you may guess how un-altar-like these Tables were, you may take the Grammarians Etymology of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a fourfooted Table. The same word used by Nonnus of Panopolis, who describeth our Saviour and his Apostles sitting round about the Table (which posture an Altar cannot admit.) On the 13. of S. John. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It is time to close and make an end of this piece. § 11. I desire to avoid all tedious prolixity, yet am guilty before I am aware. But have patience, and read the Holy Fathers Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine upon this very Text by you alleged. Athanasius (quaest. ad Antiochum, qu. 73.) calleth this gift {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Prayer. For which the propriety of your Altar is no use. S. Ambrose will teach you what gift, and what Altar also: (in his Book de vitiorum, virtutumque conflictu. c. 9 Munus nostrum est oratio nostra: Altare vero nostrum est cor. Our gift is our prayer, our Altar is our heart. You will confess that to be an invisible Altar. Saint Augustine also (de verbis Domini Serm. 16.) expoundeth what gift is here expected, saying, Te quarit Deus, God seeketh thee. And I hope we may offer up ourselves, without the help of a material proper Altar! I do think you cannot bring any man ancient or modern, of modesty and learning, that voucheth this Text for your Altars, but only your audacious Coccius, (who will venture any thing): yet even he, hath the word gift not host. Take then your corrupted Text again, and confess, that even by that, much less by our judge the pure and holy Scriptures, you neither have, nor can approve your Altars, or convince us, as you pretend. Anonymus. (D) Protestant's either have none, or make it a thing indifferent, either to have or not §. 12. to have, as appeareth by their practice. And these who have, make not use of them, according to the institution of Altars. For the use of an Altar is to make Sacrifice upon, the Altar being the proper place of the Sacrifice: as witnesseth King Edward: and the Letters for the taking down of Altars, and setting up of the Table in stead thereof: in John Fox. pag. 1520. Sir Edward Dering. THe plain stating of the point in controversy, before set down, is answer enough unto this Paragraph. I may confess all this true, but that you intend it for an accusation. If then you think it a blame in us, in that you find indifferently the name of Table and Altar, (that is Table proper, and Altar improper) you do in this blame the Ancient for being Protestants, and us for being Orthodox and Catholic with them. Doth not Gregory Nyssen (in Bapt. Christ.) indifferently, and in one breath, give us this double name? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The Holy Table is an immaculate Altar. Athanasius. (disput. cont. Arium) hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The Table, that is the holy Altar. Your own Masses ascribed to Saint James, Basil, and Chrysostom, have indifferently the terms Table, and Altar. You tell us that an Altar is a proper place of Sacrifice. True, and therein after a sort you confess the state of the question. An Altar proper, is the proper place, for proper Sacrifice: and therefore we have no such Altar because we have no such Sacrifice. For proof of this (which we grant you) you vouch the Letters aforesaid, but the place you aim at is, in the reasons after the Letters: and is the fourth reason there in these words. Fourthly, the form of an Altar was ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law: and therefore the Altar in Greek is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quasi Sacrificii locus. But now both the Law and the Sacrifices thereof do cease: wherefore the form of the Altar, used in the Altar, aught to cease withal. I conclude that you will stay longer than you expect, in purgatory, in spite of all privileges to your order granted: or else you will never come into that place: because you are so superstitious in your Altars, and have abused God's holy Word, to colour your superstition. But Repentance and amending may help you to Heaven, which graces, God in his mercy bestow upon you. In the mean time the way to obtain those graces, is to acknowledge your Fraud in depraving one of these Texts, and in misapplying both. CHAP. II. Of Folly. I Received from you (the 21. of April last) a manuscript of your own, called: § 1. A Tract of prayer to Saints, with an Epistle prefixed, directed to myself. Omitting a multitude of most impertinent allegations, and imperfect inferences I desire you to look into your last Chapter of that treatise. The Title whereof follows. Anonymus. HErein is proved, by the testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, that the Saints in Heaven know the present secrets of the heart of man. Sir Edward Dering. THese are the contents. And now we are to treat of the Saints of God, that at this present are in Heaven. In them we are to consider their knowledge: and in it the extent of this knowledge, by Anonymus here delivered to be, even by knowledge of the present secrets of the heart of man. What is Omni-sciency if this be not? The heart of man is deceitful, above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it? I the Lord search it. You Iere. 17. 9 will make the Saints to be gnostics indeed, Cardiognosticks! But better authority reserveth the attribute {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as peculiar to God alone. So 2 Chro. 6. 30. Iere. 20. 12. 1 Sam. 16. 7. 1 Chro. 28. 9 Eccles. 9 5. and Revel. 2. 23. Anonymus. CHAP. 18. THe ancient Fathers affirm that the Saints in § 2. Heaven see, and know the present secrets of the hearts of men, as Saint Ambrose, (in his Book of widows) saying, The Martyrs or Saints are our Prelates and beholders of our lives and actions. Sir Edward Dering. THe word Saints is not in Saint Ambrose, but your own interposition. I will not stand upon the word Martyrs, which in English is Witnesses. S. Ambrose saith Dei martyrs nostri praesules, &c. But to the point: what do they behold? you say well, our lives and actions. And what I pray is that to the secrets of our hearts? Is this a leading proof to your purpose? I would whip my boy at school if he should bring me an exercise so impertinent to his theme. Yet you shall have Ambrose for Ambrose. (look his Comment. 1 Cor. c. 2.) Manifestum est (saith he) cogitationes nostras à nullo sciri, nisi ab animo nostro. It is clear that our thoughts are known by none, but by our own Soul. And again (on the first Chapter to the Romans) first slighting that wretched excuse (so he calls it) of going to God, as to a King by his Courtiers, he there concludeth plainly, Ad Deum— promerendum, Suffragatore non opus est, sed mente devota. Unto the promeriting of God we have no need of one that helpeth with his good words, but of a devout mind. Anonymus. SAint Gregory (in his 40. Homily) saith, Because the Saints see the clarity of their Creator, § 3. therefore there is nothing done in any Creature which they cannot see. Sir Edward Dering. OUt again. This is concerning things done, and what is that unto the secret of man's heart? you are out, begin again. Anonymus. AGain Saint Gregory (in his 12. Book of Meralls, c. 13.) saith, we must believe, that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselves, are not ignorant of any thing that is done without. Sir Edward Dering. YOur promise is of thoughts within, and your proof still of things done without. Well shot. Go to your Book again and study the point better: are you lazy, or are you weak, or is your cause ill? He that whistles daily to his Cart, hath logic enough to distinguish between matter of fact done, and the secret thought of heart. You shall have Gregory for Gregory, and that in this very Chapter, an objection by him made, and do you find his answer there if you can. Sicut Corporea atque incorporea diversa sunt genere, ita sunt distincta cognitione. As corporeal and incorporeal are of a several genus, so are they also distinct in knowledge. How shall these thus distinct know one another, even concerning things done, much more concerning thoughts; S. Gregory hath not answered for himself: do you undertake it. Anonymus. SAint Basil (in his Book of Virginity) faith, there is not any Saint, which doth not see all § 4. things that are done anywhere in the world. Sir Edward Dering. YOu know I am an easy workman, and you take care to set me easy work. Whether Basil have these words in that long Book, or no, I can not readily find. But if you will open your eyes, you may confess, that they who see all things done, may yet be ignorant of all secrets thought and imagined. Anonymus. SAint Prosper in his Book of contemplative life is of the same opinion, saying. Nothing § 5. is so secret as the knowledge thereof may be denied unto the perfectly blessed: their seeing God with pure understanding being without comparison a thing more excellent. Sir Edward Dering. BIshop Prosper saith, (as you allege) Nothing is so secret, &c. Now the general acceptation, and meaning of the word Nothing is No thing, and that is Nothing to your purpose. But I have found these words in Prosper: and you shall have them and more. The title of his Chapter is De resurrectione, &c. Of the Resurrection to come; not of the present Saints now in Heaven: he speaketh their of our future Beatitude receptis cum immortalitate corporibus. When our bodies shall be immortal. And then saith that in that blessed contemplative life, Ibi ita patebunt singulorum singulis mentes sicut corporalibus oculis subjacent facies corporales. Every one's mind to every one, shall there so lie open, as corporal faces are exposed to corporal eyes. Thus it shall be then, and there at the Resurrection, and in Heaven.— Now goeth he on to your words. Nec latebit jam perfecte beatos aliquid Secretorum, qui— ipsum visuri sunt mundis cordibus Deum. None of these things that are secret shall now lie hid to the perfectly blessed, who shall see God himself with pure hearts. Thus your Saints in Prosper know the secrets of one another's minds in Heaven, after the Resurrection, & what (I pray) is that to the present Saints in Heaven? and to there knowing the present secrets of men's hearts on earth? I am ashamed to be put to answer such weak, so poor, so worthless, and impertinent arguments: but you are another Xenocrates; and though I be not worthy to hold the candle to Aristotle. Yet I will borrow his words of indignation reported by Plutarch: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, it is a shame for me to hold peace, when Xenocrates takes upon him to teach. But I proceed unto your last authority. Anonymus. SAint Augustine (in his 22. Book of the city of God, Chap. 29.) saith; The Saints of § 6. God, even with the eyes of their body closed up, shall see all things, not only present, but also from which they are corporally absent: for than shall be that perfection, whereof the Apostle saith, we now prophesy but in part, than the imperfect shall be taken away. Sir Edward Dering. I Cannot in that place find the words you cite, nor need I care: it is enough that the words themselves, as you produce them, do prove nothing of that you intend them for. The Saints (you say) with the eyes of their body closed up, &c. But you believe their bodies, and their bodily eyes, shall not be in Heaven, until the general Resurrection: So than Saint Augustine and Prosper speak not of the Saints now in Heaven: and therefore nothing to your question. That Saint Augustine could not so mean, you may read what I am sent unto, by your Francis à St Clare, in his 37. and last problem. Who telleth me, that Saint Augustine did doubt whether the Saints departed do yet, before the general Resurrection enjoy the beatifical Vision: or that rather they be in certain occult and hidden receptacles until then. The places are pregnant. Qui morte obierunt, secret is animarum, receptaculis, sedibusque requiescunt. The dead, do rest in secret receptacles, and De civitate Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9 seats of souls. And again, in his Retractations (lib. 1. cap. 14.) De sanctis hominibus jam defunctis, utrum ipsi saltem d●cendi sint in illa possessione consistere, meritò quaeritur. Of holy men already departed, whether they at least may be said to be in that possession (that is of Beatitude) may deservedly be questioned. If there present state of Beatitude may (in Saint Augustine's opinion) be deservedly questioned, how can you think that he should say that the present Saints in Heaven, see all that is done on earth, much more, what is thought in the heart of man? Thus Saint Augustine is no more for you then the other Fathers were, even in that chosen piece you have vouched yourself: But to let you see that you have no shadow to shelter yourself withal under that eminent Father, read in his Book (de cura pro mortuis) Cap. 13. and you shall find his opinion clear in this point. Ibi sunt spiritus defunctorum, ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt ista vita hominibus. The spirits of men departed are there, where they do not see, whatsoever is done, or doth chance to men in this life: If not what is done, then much less what is thought. The same Father beginneth his 15. Chapter, of Care for the dead, with these words; Proinde fatendum est, nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur.— Furthermore, it is to be confessed, that the dead know not what is done here,— And so goeth on to declare that the dead if they know, do know by relation of such as pass by death, from hence unto them. Thus by Saint Augustine's opinion, the dead see neither thoughts nor actions here below. So have you (as in some before) Saint Augustine for S. Augustine; make your Reply when youn can. In the mean time you are not the man; whose right hand should support old Troy, or your Troy-discended Romans. As my Uncle Dering in his restraint of Mr Harding's untruths (Printed 1568.) said unto Master Harding, so say I unto you, in consideration of these pitiful helps to so poor a cause. They that favour your doings, may bewail with Andromach, lifting up your weak hands of Astyanax, and say, Spes nullas habet Troja si istas habet. Your Troy hath no hope at all, if it have no hope but this. A word or two, for the opinion of your own Doctors, and a Text of holy Scripture, and so §. 7. adieu for this point. I might trouble you, with abundant vouchers out of the Fathers, as of Saint Jerome who proveth our Saviour to be God, by On Matt. 9 that very argument, (because he knew the secrets of man's heart. But you shall be paid in your own currant coin. Your Doctor Thomas of Aquine. 1. p. q. 57 a●. 4. Cognoscere cogitationes cordis est proprium Dei (and on Iere. 17.) Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt secreta cordis. To know the cogitations of the heart, is the property of God:— Therefore the Angels know not the secrets of the heart. And again, Cognoscere singularia, & cogitata & facta 1. p. q. 12. ar. 8. corum, non est de perfectione intellectus creati. To know particulars, and the thoughts and acts of them, is not of the perfection of a created understanding. Dominicus ●annes saith, Nullus beatus videt in divina essentia omnia individua, omnes cogitationes eorum, &c. No blessed Saint doth see in the divine Essence all inidividuals, or all their thoughts, &c. Durandus. Si quaeratur an 4. d. 45. q. 4. p. 4●3. beati, cognitione beata, cognoscunt orationes nostras, dicendum quod non. If the question be, whether the blessed Saints, in their blessed knowledge do know our prayers, it is to be answered they do not. If not our prayers, than not the secret of our hearts. Take one word more, more worth than All. It is a piece of that excellent prayer of King Solomon, at the dedication of the Temple, where he beseeching God to hear the prayers of every man, and of all the people there, to be made, acknowledgeth the omniscient glory of God in these words, For thou, even thou only knowest the 1 King 8. 39 hearts of all the children of men. Now I shall never hear more of you in this point: But what a delinquency of Reason and common sense is this, to pretend proof for Thought of heart, and to bring none but for Things done? Is not this Folly. CHAP. III. Foul-Language. FRom folly to Foul-Language. That is the progress of many: who when they are pressed with a bad cause, § 1. or do labour in their own Ignorance, they (rather than submit) will fly to railing Language, a sure sign, and absolute symptom that the brain is empty of good, or the heart full of ill. I need not part and divide this piece, yourself have figured it into four and twenty. I will presume so much upon your new age, and a sober review of them, that you will not expect from me, a confutation, of those things whereof you will be now ashamed to hear the repetition. I have shown this piece to divers of your own religion who all turn from it, as from gross and unsavoury railing. But to the particulars. In your Treatise Jesus, Maria, Joseph, Chap. 70. § 2. Pag. 370. Your charity bestowing on us the odious name of heretics, thus you begin. 1. They say they are justified by Faith only, without keeping the commandments; and Saint James saith, The devils believe and tremble. 2. They say they can do no good works; but that all their best works are of their own nature, worthy of eternal pains: and the works of the devils can be no worse. 3. They say they cannot merit: no more can devils. 4. They say they have no inherent grace, no more have devils. 5. They say, that notwithstanding all the repentance which they can make, yet their sins still remain in them: and so is it with devils. 6. They have no mass, or memory of our Saviour, voluntarily offering up himself, for our redemption, no more have devils. 7. They do not pray to Angels, or Saints, to pray unto God for them, no more do devils. 8. They have no respect, or reverence to pictures or images of God, or his Saints, no more have devils. 9 They do not esteem of the Sacrament of penance, or confession, no more do devils. 10. They do not reverence the bodies, and relics of Saints, no more do devils. 11. They beat down crosses and crucifixes; and in all hell there is not found one. 12. They say they cannot bless, or give a blessing to any creature, no more can devils. 13. They say, that they cannot love God with all their hearts, nor keep his commandments, no more can devils. 14. They have no Sacraments which confer grace, no more have devils. 15. They hate ceremonies, and devils use none. 16. They say they have no free will to do good, no more have devils. 17. They use no indulgences, no more do devils. 18. All may teach, and preach amongst them: and so it is amongst the devils. 19 They have no holy or consecrated places, no more have devils. 20. They use no holy water, or holy oils, no more do devils. 21. They have no purgatory, no more have devils. 22. They have no Altars or Sacrifices, no more have devils. 23. They allege Scriptures, according to their own private judgement, and so did the devils, Luk. 4. 24. Their whole congregation may err: and so may all the devils. Are not these all together a mass of Fraud, Folly, and Foul-Language? find one if you can and § 3. choose it out, of the 24. which is true, serious, and relisheth of a Christian Spirit! I am none of them that will {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: and if any man seem to be 1 Cor. 11. 16. contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. It were a silly endeavour to stamp the same mettle, into the like coin, and so pay you, as you deserve. Yet take a taste, and call for more as you like it. They (the Papists) do require the worship of Images, so do devils. They say they have power among them to work miracles, so hath Satan, 2 Thes. 2. 9 The Pope assumeth power to dispose of kingdoms, so did the devil, Matth. 4. 9 They practice and allow of equicocation, so did the devil in his oracles. Is not this good stuff? make your own choice, and expound yourself, upon any one of your 24. and conclude: and here I take upon me to show you, that your own inference is foul, and either foolish or false. Leave and change you self unto Truth, and a better temper, lest it be said unto you, (as Revel. 22. 11.) He which is filthy let him be filthy still. CHAP. iv. Of Blasphemy. THe last is worst. You may be ashamed of the former, but I am afraid to § 1. read and repeat, what is to come. I received a treatise from you by Dan. Sted. but was not willing to believe it yours until since you did own it to me more than once. It is an appeal unto King James, under the name of Io. Hunt, Printed Anne Dom. 1620. How basely, and with how foul a mouth you speak there, of that excellent and admirable Queen Elizabeth, is unfit for any man to foul his pen with: more unfit for you, who were her subject born, so to vomit against your dead Prince: and most unfit for any good Christian so much as to think. But it is a happiness to her, and us, that rank malice hath made and invented lies so gross and palpable, that it hath destroyed it own intended mischief. So sometime a rabid anger, may make a cur bite out his own Teeth. You have herein exceeded all that ever I have met withal, but the reason is (as in Ovid) Non tibi plus cordis, sed minus oris inest: which is well rendered in prose by Erasmus. Non plus audes, aut sapis, sed minus pudet. But I pass the baseness of that barbarism, because § 2. a far more odious cause cryeth out. Look in your sixth chapter, and excuse yourself from Blasphemy if you can. Among Advocates and Disputants it is held odious and absurd, to leave the cause, and inveigh and rail against the persons: But you leaving the cause and our persons also, boldly fly in Os Coeli into the face of God. Mark your own words, I will begin where you have set your mark in the margin (Note say you) as if you thought it an excellent piece of your own performance. The words are these, pag. 27. Where they speak to their earthly Lords and Kings, either they stand or kneel handsomely, § 3. with their hats in their hands: but when they speak to their God, commonly they either speak sitting, with their caps on, as hail fellow well met with their God, or else with their noses thrust into their hats, for fear, as it seemeth, that the evil smells which come from their God should infect their brains. Their Temples and Synagogues are not so neat as their bedchambers, galleries or chambers of presence, or audience: and when they come into their Temples to treat with their God, or hear his Word or Law, unless, it be for respect of some man there, every one without respect to his God, sitteth him down, and putteth on his cap: In so much as the God of the Protestants, is the most uncivil, evil-mannered God of all those, who have borne the name of Gods upon earth: yea worse than Pan, the God of clowns, that can endure no ceremonies or good manners. To this I add what (of the same strain) I find in your fourth Chapter; Pag. 19 I appeal (say you) to your Majesty (meaning King James of precious memory) well pleased to consider how great injustice it is, to have your ancient Subjects spoiled of their lands, goods, liberty and life, and be condemned as Felons and traitors, For that they will not believe in such a perjured God. Is not this Language worthy a Faggot, without a recantation? can you devise, more high, more § 4. impious, more daring Blasphemy? Did you ever hear any the worst of Protestants ever Blaspheme God for ever to be blessed? Did ever any of us deny, or disclaim your god to be our God? Did you ever hear any of your own Papists so Blasphemous as yourself? Is the God of Protestants, your God? How dare you then revile him? If he be not your God, you than do serve the devil. Lord bow down thine 2 King. 19 16. ear and hear: open Lord thine eyes and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib which hath sent him to reproach the living God. I will not deseant upon so foul, so bold impiety: I forbear and leave you to the consistory of your own conscience. The repetition of this is so odious, that (I dare say) you are condemned even at home in your own bosom already: at least I would hope so well of you, that you have and do condemn yourself: which you must do for this even to hell, or else you can have no true hope for Heaven, and you had need to do it as publicly, as this is which you have here set forth. If your temper will be hot, yet (as it is Revel. 3. 19) Be zealous, and repent. Conclusion. IN the first of my four Chapters, I have observed, §. 5. how you have disclaimed the holy Scriptures for your judge, honouring us with that indubious character of being the sheep of Christ's fouled, because we hear his voice, whilst you disvalew, deny, and disclaim the authority of his Word. Here again, in this last Chapter I find our God (as before his Word) disclaimed by you. (The God of the Protestants say you, &c. And then not content divers times to have denied him for your God, you Blaspheme him also in horrid and most fearful Language: Language of that transcendency, and so devilish, that it cannot be believed with the Analogy of God's honour, and due reverence to his Name, that the devil, and the howling damned in hell, shall be suffered to belch against the Majesty of Heaven, the names of uncivil, evil-mannered, perjured God, worse than the god of clowns, &c. Thus have you denied God in this world, pray you, (and I pray God) that you may by repentance and amendment, prevent the time when God shall else deny you in the world to come: lest that you there find, that unto Maledicentibus there is an ite, Maledicti. Go you cursed, will be said to them that curse. For Blasphemia est maledicentia, &c. Blasphemy is cursing, &c. Repent, recall yourself and others, lest you prove Anonymus in the Book of Life. FINIS.