Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 8
Chap. 8. The ſecond Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.
Fr. Io. THat which appointeth and ratifyeth the worſhipping of God in vaine, that cannot make either true Chriſtians or true Churches.
But the doctrine publikely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God in vaine, Therefore, &c.
Of the trueth of the Propoſition, none can doubt. And the Aſſumption is thus proved:
That which appointeth and ratifyeth the worſhipping of God by the precepts of Man, that appointeth and ratifyeth the worſhipping of God in vaine. (This Chriſt affirmeth out of Eſay the Prophet, Mat. 15.9. with Eſay. 29.13.)
But the doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in Englād appointeth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God by the precepts of man. (This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Articles of the book alledged, and by their other books of Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Common prayer, their Holy dayes, Faſting dayes, Cenſures, Hierarchy &c. All which are the precepts of men and authoriſed by Law in England.)
Therefore the doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appoincteth and ratifyeth the worſhipping of God in vaine. And conſequently cannot make a particuler man a true Chriſtian, nor the aſſemblies ſo gathered together, true Churches.
H. IACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reaſon. THis your Second Reaſon is: This booke and others appoincteth and ratifyeth the worſhipping of God in vaine, Ergo &c. 1. This alſo hath anſwere in the third Exception Pag 57. 2. Alſo, note I pray you, this Scripture [Mat. 15.] is verified of ſuch as were then of the true viſible♣Marke his open contrariety with hī ſelf, granting this in Reaſ. 6 Church, with vvhom Chriſt and his Apoſtles, both in Chriſts tyme and after his death, did ſometimes ioyne and communicate. This therefore maketh for vsus and againſt you moſt notably.
FR. Io. his Aunſwer to Mr. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 2. Reaſon. THe Reaſon is as you ſee it propounded before. N…w what propoſitiō do you deny? Not any at all. What defence then bring you of your book of Common prayer and the particulars therein; of your books of Articles and Iniunctions; of your Prelacy and other Miniſtery receyved frō then according to your popiſh Pontificall; of your Canons and Excommunications &c. Surely none neyther. What then do you anſwer? Not a word, but that you refer vsus to your anſwer before in the laſt Exception: whither alſo we refer the Reader with this note, that there he ſhall finde nothing, either for anſwer of any propoſition of this argument, or for defence of your worſhip, Prelacy, Miniſtery, and Church gouernement called into queſtion. Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like anſwer? Have you not (may we thinke) good proof for your preſent eſtate and Church-conſtitution, which thus leave it altogeather without defence, even when it moſt needeth, and as it were, beggeth your help and ſuccor, if you could affoard it any. Yet now having no aunſwer to any part of the Argument, you bid vsus note, that this Scripture (Mat. 15.) here alledged; is verifyed of ſuch as were then of the true viſible Church, with whom Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles both in Chriſts tyme, and after his death, did ſometyme ioine and communicate. This therefore you ſay maketh for you and againſt vsus moſt notably.
1 But firſt tell vsus, if‡As that of Lev. 10.1.2.3. Num. 16 1. &c. Eſa. 1.11.12.13.14.15. Zeph 1.12. 1 Cor. 11.19. many things, which are verifyed ſometymes of the members of a true Church, may not alſo fitly be applyed, and alleadged againſt a falſe Church, and yet not iuſtify their eſtate and conſtitution, neither make for them, but againſt them altogeather. Otherwiſe you condemne at once all the Martyrs heretofore, who vſually alleadged this†Mat. 15.9 very Scripture againſt the falſe worſhip of the Romiſh Church, as as your ſelf cannot be ignorant. Yet in your learning it ſeemeth the Papiſts might well have aunſwered the Martyrs againe, that this Scripture was verifyed of them that were of the true viſible Church, and therefore made for them and againſt the Martyrs moſt notably.
2 Secondly, when you ſay, This Scripture is verifyed of ſuch as were of the true viſible Church with whom Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated, tell vp, whether you meane that Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated with them in their vaine traditiōs, or no. If you think they did, that very Chapter ſheweth the contrary beſides that the whole Scriptures teſtify, that Chriſt was altogeather free from ſinne,Mat. 15.2. which he could not have bene, if he had ioyned with them in thoſe their inventions. If they did not, (as it is without all queſtion) then what doth this helpe you, who do all of you ioyne and cōmmunicate with the fa…ſe worſhip of your Aſſemblyes?
3 Thirdly I anſwer, that your note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpoſe for the queſtion in hand. For firſt, who knoweth not, that …e the Iewiſh Church; the doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practiſed by their Law, did not appoint or ratifie any of thoſe vaine traditions, but vtterlie forbid them? Wheras contrarilie, the verie doctrine publiquelie profeſſed and practiſed by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the falſe worſhipping of God by the inventions of men. Secondlie, thoſe vaine traditions aforeſaid, were the perſonall ſinnes of ſome particuler men in the Iewiſh Church, not publiquelie eſtabliſhed by law, nor generallie received and practiſed in that Church:‡Luk. 1.5.6 8.9.10. & 2.21.22.23.24.25.27.36.37.38.39.41.46. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. Ioh. 10.34. Zachary and Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, Chriſt himſelf, and his Apoſtles, with manie others kept the ordinance of God given by the hande of Moſes, and obſerved of that Church. Neither did they ioyne or pollute themſelves with that vaine worſhip aforeſaid: whereas in the Church of England, the falſe worſhip thereof deviſed by men, even by that man of ſinne, is not the perſonall ſinne of ſome particular men in it, but is publiquelie eſtabliſhed by law, and generallie received and practiſed in your aſſemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this ſcripture maketh nothing for you, but againſt you moſt notably.
Now whereas in the margent, you wiſh the Reader to marke an open contrariety, comparing this and the Sixt Reaſon togeather: we do alſo referre it to the Reader to iudge, whether there be not even an harmonie with this, and a direct confirmation of it.
H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2 Reaſon. TO this your defence of your Second Reaſon, I ſay, you have aunſwer in your laſt Exception, page 57. You aſke what propoſition I do deny? I anſwer, I diſtinguiſh your aſſūptiō as being a fallacie called foreign. concluding a thing ſimply, from that which is after a ſort, like vntounto that Reaſon which I framed againſt you in pag. 57. A man hath a woodden legg, an eye of glaſſe, &c. Therefore he is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. held aſmuch as wee, aftet mens precepts: Ergo they worſhipped in vaine. Geneva holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper, Ergo, Geneva worſhippeth God in vaine. Euen ſo your Aſſumption runneth. Our doctrine (ſay you Pag. 82.) appoincteth Gods worſhip by mens precepts. This is falſe, vnleſſe you meane it foreign, after a ſort, not ſimply. For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worſhip by mens precepts, nor the chiefeſt part of it: as the preaching of the Goſpell of life, Sacramentes, and Prayers, &c. So that it concludeth nothing in that ſence. Therefore here you play the falſe Sophiſter, not the Chiſtian and conſcionable Diſputer. Thus you have anſvver enough to this in the anſvver to your laſt Exception, though you vvould not ſee it.
*Pag. 82.Further I noted Secondly, That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a viſible Church, vvith vvhom Chriſt did cōmunicate, though they held alſo traditions of men: Therefore it affirmeth nothing againſt vsus. Is not this true? Why then do you not admit it? We never denyed, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this onelyonly vvee affirme, it diſanulleth not our Churches: Euen as Chriſt here condemneth the Ievves corrupt traditions, but hee meant not there by … their Church▪ Therefore all this is not againſt our purpoſe, but notably for vsus is before obſerved.
1. Concerning your Firſt anſvver in Pag. 83. I knovv this Scripture may be applyed againſt falſe vvorſhippers vvhichwhich are no true Church: But it proueth not I ſay, all them, to vvhom it may bee applyed, to bee no true Church: Therefore you abuſe it againſt vsus, Except you had firſt proved vsus no true Church nor Chriſtians, vvhichwhich yet is in queſtion.
2. Where in your Second anſwere*pag. 83. you ſay That this helpeth vsus not except we ſay that Chriſt communicateed with the Phariſies in theſe traditions, like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now. For ſhame leave this folly. I ſay againe, I ſeke not to iuſtify our partaking in our traditions, but I renounce it in ſobrietie aſmuch as you, yea better then you do: Yet I ſay this place ſhall admit thoſe vvho doe in ſimplicitie partake of them, to be true Chriſtians nevertheleſſe, like as it admitteth the Ievves then.
3. In your Third aunſvver“pag. 83. 84 You deny that thoſe Iewiſh traditions of waſhing, &c. were with them received generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I aunſvver, That they vvere generally received, as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verſe doeth teſtify, and that they vvere rebuked vvho vſed rhem not: vvhichwhich is ſufficient to make it their Churches doctrine & practize, though no expreſſe law cōmanded it. But I ſuppoſe verſe 5. where they ſay, [why walkest thou not after the traditions of the Elders] he meaneth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as lawes, beſides the lawe of Moſes. What els is their Thalmud, which is till this day, euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie, and the Alcoran of Turky. Some alſo vnderſtand this of the ordinances of the Elders, that is, their preſent Gouernours: and then doubtleſſe it was lavv. And though Zachary, Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, did not actually ioyne in theſe corruptions, yet they vvere generall no doubt and by lavv never the leſſe, and a number of the Ievves ſimply vſed them, and yet fell not from God, as†The Sixe waterpots of the Iewiſhe purifyings. Iohn 2.6. Therefore your Replies here are moſt vaine and falſe.
Laſtlie, in pag. 84. you will not confeſſe your contrarietie, that is to ſay, betweene this your Second Reaſon and certen wordes in your Sixt Reaſon. But the greater is your ſinne, to doe euill and defende it too. Here in this Reaſon pag. 82. you would hauehave this ſcripture Mat. 15. to be meant againſt ſuch vaine worſhippers, that they become heereby no true Church. (Or els what doe you vrge it againſt vsus?) But in your Sixt Reaſon following, you ſay, That the Iewes euen nowe when theſe words were applyed to them, were the true worſhippers of God. Are not theſe contrarie, I pray you, then reconcile them.
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the. 2. Reaſon. VVHhatſoeuer you brought againſt the laſt Exception before, is there anſwered. Pag. 58. 59. 60. 61. Your woodden leg will not make your Reply go for currant, neyther can your glaſſy eye ſee how to take … my aunſwer. The vanitie of this compariſon of yours applied to your eſtate, I have already diſcovered. And for Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. I have aunſwered before. Pag. 40. 41. 59. 60. Divers of the differences there noted may likewiſe ſerve for*Yet if it be still with Geneva, as you ſay: the thing as of very yll note. If it be not ſo, note M. Iacob. Geneva. Beſides that the conſtitution of that Church is in the way of Chriſt: whereas yours is in the apoſtaſy of Antichriſt. And ſo there is no comparing of your eſtate and theirs togeather: although in ſome things it may be they walke corruptly, and you in other with ſome ſhow of piety.
Your foreign (M. Iacob) would aſwell help the Iewes to have confuted the Prophet Eſay and our Saviour Chriſt, as it doth you. For I pray you, did the doctrine and Law of their Church appoint all Gods vvorſhip by mens precepts, or yet the chiefeſt part of it? Or had it ben of waight, if they had thus aunſwered Chriſt and his Prophets, as you do here? Shall I now ſay, you play the ignorant Sophiſter, yea and the falſe Sophiſter too.
And where you ſay next, Your Preaching, Sacraments, Prayers &c. are not appointed by mens precepts, Is not this alſo a manifeſt vntruth? Let your Offices of Miniſtery by vertue of which theſe are adminiſtred; your Prelates ſilencing of you at their pleaſure; your Iniunctions, Canons, Articles, Common prayer book, according to which you are appointed and bound to adminiſter all your holy things: Let theſe (I ſay) ſpeak indifferently between vsus. Yea let your owne men ſpeak, and they will teſtify againſt you. In the ſecond Admonition to the Parliament they affirme,†2 Admon. pag. 6. That although ſome truth be taught by ſome Preachers, yet no Preachers may vvithout great dāger of the Lavves vtter all the truth compriſed in the book of God. It is ſo circunſcribed and vvrapt vvithin the cōpaſſe of Statutes, Penalties, Iniunctions, Articles, Canons, &c. Alſo, that theſe may not be offended againſt, but vvith more daunger then to offend againſt the Bible. Yea, that the Bible muſt have no further ſcope, then by theſe it is aſſigned.
Adde herevnto your Book of common prayer, by which you are enioyned how to adminiſter your Sacraments, what to pray when to exhort &c. Which likewiſe you may not break, but with more danger then to offend againſt the Bible: as in the Admonition aforeſaid is teſtifyed. Mynd alſo, that your Church is enioined in the ſervice of God publikly to read the Apocrypha books which have errors, fables, magik, blaſphemy &c. and to leave altogeather vnread ſome parts of the Canonicall Scripture as being (you ſay) leaſt edifying, & might beſt be ſpared: as the book of Canticles and other parts of the Old Teſtament; And in the New alſo, part of the firſt Chapter of Mathevv, and of the 3. of Luke, and almoſt the whole Book of the Revelation: Of which the Spirit of God ſaith expreſſely, Bleſſed is he that readeth, Rev. 1.3.and they that heare the vvords of this Prophecy &c. For proof hereof, ſee the Kalender and Rubrick in your book of Commō Prayer, for the order of reading the Scripture in your Church throughout the yeare.
Speak now your ſelf Mr. Iacob, Is it not cleare, that your Preaching, Sacraments, Prayer &c. are appointed by mens precepts? Vnles you will ſay, Your Iniunctions, Canons, Articles, Statutes, Common prayer book &c. be not the precepts of men. As it may be you will not ſtick much at it, if you can colour the matter with a foreign, or like deceit. So Chriſtian a Diſputer and conſcionable you are.
Againe, Is the Papiſts vvhole vvorſhip or the chiefeſt part of it otherwiſe by the precepts of men, then yours is? It may be you will take pepper in the noſe, that I aſke you this. For I perceive your little pacyence is already much moved. You ſhall not therefore heare it of me, becauſe I would not put you out of all quyet. I will but tell you what your owne men ſay of it, at whoſe hands I doubt not but you will take it better. Thus then they ſay, ſpeaking of your eſtate:*2 Admon. pag. 7. He that could not abide ſtraunge fyer in the old Lavv but burnt them that vſed it, vvhat vvill he do to vsus in the nevv Lavv that erect a nevv and ſtraunge courſe or vvord to rule his Church by? What did the Pope but ſo? He did ſuffer Gods vvorde to have a courſe as far as it pleaſeth him, ſo that he might have the vvhole authority above it.
What now Mr Iacob? How will you aunſwer your owne men? Or will you be ſo good to the Papiſts your grandſiers, as a little to help them at a dead lift with your foreign? So may they plead for their worſhip againſt this Scripture (Mat. 15.9.) oppoſed vntounto them by the Martyrs, as you do for yours. Specially, ſeing your Book of common prayer was taken out of their Portuis; and your Book of conſecrating Biſhops and Prieſts, out of their Pontificall. So that if theirs, then yours alſo muſt needs be according to the precepts of men, yea of Antichriſt that man of ſinne. Thus you have aunſwer enough to this, if you have eye enough to ſee it.
In your Second note, becauſe this Scripture was ſpoken to them that were of a viſible Church &c. you ſay,Mat. 15.9. Therefore it affirmeth nothing againſt you. This is a very ſtraunge conſequence. Have not your ſelves alledged it againſt the Papiſts? and would you admit of ſuch an anſwer? I ſhewed heretofore, that the things verifyed ſometymes of the members of a true Church, may fitly be alledged againſt a falſe Church. and yet not iuſtify them in ſuch eſtate to be a true one. See the Scriptures†Pag. 83. there quoted, which by the Martyrs and others are often ſo alledged againſt the Papiſts. VntoUnto which you can ſay nothing.
Beſides alſo, the Iewes being a true Church, and yet their worſhip vntounto many of them by their traditions proving to be in vaine: it followeth more ſtrongly againſt the falſe Church and her abominations, which are far mo and of another nature then thoſe in Iewry. Thus ſhould you apply it to your ſelves.
Laſtlie minde that now you are driven to ſaie, you never denied but this Scripture condemneth your corruptions. So by your owne confeſſiō, your worſhip of God is in vayne. No part of it is free from your corruptions. Let ſuch then ioine with you therein as have pleaſure in vaine worſhip. 2 Theſ. 2.12. vvith Exod. 20.5. Chriſt never communicated in any ſuch, but rebuked it and all them that worſhipped God in ſuch maner, even this Scripture being witnes. Therefore it maketh notablie againſt you and for vsus, as is before obſerved.
1. In your Replie to the firſt point of my Aunſvver next following, you can not ſaie a word againſt it. Yet will you not yeeld. Still you would have me graunt that which I denie, and you ſhould prove: viz, That in your eſtate you are a true Church &c. The contrarie whereof I have proved‡Pag. 3. 12. 16. 22. 33. 59. 60. 61. 63. &c. before. Therefore is it not yet in queſtion.
2. To the ſecond you yeeld with ſhame enough: though your follie be ſo great, as you ſee it not. For firſt, you neither do nor can aunſwer (but againſt your ſelves) to that which I aſked concerning Chriſt and his Apoſtles, vvhether they communicated in thoſe traditions of the Ieevves, or not. If by your ſilence you conſent that they did not (as in deed the truth is) then by their exāple are we alſo bound not to partake in yours. If you ſaie they did, then you both blaſpheme Chriſt, making him a ſinner, and give the holy Ghoſt the lie, who in†Mat. 15.2.13.14. this verie Chapter teſtifies the contrarie. Thus whatſoever you ſhall aunſwer, it maketh againſt you excedinglie. And becauſe you anſwer not, it importeth that you yeeld. So alſo doth that moſt plainlie, which here you ſpeak for your ſelf.
You ſaie you ſeek not to iuſtify your partaking in your traditions &c. Yes Mr Iacob, you ſeek it, but you are aſhamed to profeſſe it. Els why condemne you vsus for not partaking therein? I know you will ſay (as is in the Preface of your book) that your minde is, we ſhould partake with you in your lavvfull things, not in your traditions. But for ſhame leave this follie. None can ioyne with any of your Churches or Miniſterie, but they muſt needs partake with your Antichriſtian traditions. Shew the contrarie in any Miniſter or Church of the Land, and we yeeld. Otherwiſe, what do you but yeeld?
The renouncing you ſpeak of, is in word, not in work. You renounce evill with your lippes, but approve it in your deeds. And thus is verified vponupon you that which Chriſt out of the Prophet ſpake in the†Mat. 15.8. place aforeſaid, This people dravveth neare vntounto me vvith their mouth and honoreth me vvith the lippes, but their heart is far from me.
And where you ſpeak of ſuch as do in ſimplicity partake of your traditions, to be true Chriſtians nevertheles, Albeit in your conſtitution they can not by the word of God ſo be counted,Pag. 3. 7. 16. 33. 63. &c. as hath ben proved: yet I pray tell vsus, what then you think of thoſe that partake with your traditions, not of ſimplicity, but as your ſelf do: that is, knowing them to be againſt the Second Commaundement; of Antichriſt; vaine vvorſhipp; never but nought &c.
3. In the third point of my aunſvver, I noted two differences between your caſe and the Iewes: the firſt towching the Law it ſelf, the ſecond towching the obſervation of it. For the Lavv, I ſhewed that the ordinance of God given by Moſes (even the written word) being the Law of that Church, it did not appoint but forbid thoſe traditions: Yours contrarilie. For the obſervation, I ſhewed that the traditions were not generallie obſerved of all the members of that Church, as yours be. Both theſe I proved by the Scripture, Luk. 1.5-10. & 2.21. &c. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. Ioh. 10.34. Where marke in Iohn thoſe words of Chriſt to the Iewes [In your Law] ſpeaking of the written word. Now vntounto this ſo plaine evidence you aunſwer nothing at all to the purpoſe.
For the former, you ſeem at firſt to yeeld, that theſe traditions were not commaunded by the Law of that Church? But yet being ſo generally received, and they rebuked who vſed them not, you count it to be as good. Which I denie. Then you would prove theſe to be the Law of that Church, becauſe they are called†Mar. 7.5. the Traditions of the Elders. But even by this appeareth, that they were not the Law of that Church, but a Tradition received from hand to hand from their forefathers. Which therefore bound not anie, neither were obſerved by all, as it is with you. Neither was their caſe then, as the Iewes is now with their Thalmud; or as the Turks with their Alcoran; neither as the Papiſts or yours with the Canon Law. If it had ben ſuch, then could they not have ben a true Church. And to vnderſtand this to be the ordinance of their preſent Governours (as to ſerve your turne you could be content) is altogeather without ground. It is both againſt the common vſe of the word Tradition here vrged, and againſt the true meaning of the word Elders in this place:Mat. 5 21.27.33. which plainelie appeareth by another word vſed in Mat. 5. in ſuch ſence as this is here, and in ſtead thereof, ſignifying Them of old tyme, or the like.
For the latter, that is the obſervation, you would prove out of*Mar. 7.3. Mark, that they were generally received. If you meane, they were received of very many, but not of all, you ſpeak nothing againſt that which I ſaid. If you meane they were received of all among them (as the words ſeem to ſound) then you miſvnderſtand and miſalledge that Scripture. I will ſhew it by a like ſpeach vſed alſo by Mark in another place, where he ſaith, all the countrey of Iudea and they of Ieruſalem came out to Iohn, †Mar. 1.5.and vvere all baptiſed of him &c. Now by the word All in this place he meaneth onelyonly a great many, and not everie one, as the word might ſeem to import. For that all were not baptiſed of him, is evident both by“Mat. 21.32 Luk. 7.30. other Scriptures; and by this reaſon, that if all Iudea and Ieruſalem had ben baptized of him, then had they all confeſſed their ſinnes and become diſciples. Which all men know was far otherwiſe. Likewiſe in this place, although he ſaie All the Ievves, becauſe they were many, yet even in the‡Mar. 7.2. next verſe going before he ſaieth the Diſciples (who alſo were Iewes) obſerved them not, and therefore the Phariſees complained.
Thus you ſee they were not received of all the Iewes: as heretofore I ſhewed not onelie in the Diſciples, but in divers other by name.Pag. 84. Of whom you cannot denie but it is true. They were the perſonall ſinnes of ſome, not the publik eſtabliſhed Law, neither generallie received and practiſed in that Church, as I noted yours to be in your Aſſemblies, that is of all the members thereof. Neither is there anie compariſon between yours and theirs: as (beſides that which I have ſhewed before) may appeare even by the vvaterpots here mentioned by your ſelf. Of the lawfull or vnlawfull vſe whereof I need not ſtand to ſpeak, it being evident that they were no waie ſo vnlawfull, or of ſuch nature, as your corruptiōs are. Let this then which hath ben ſaid ſuffice to ſhew how true and pertinent my aunſwers be.
That there is no contrariety between anie thing ſpoken here and in the ſixt Reaſon following, the Reader may ſee. And that it is your ſelf who do evill, and defend it too, there need no other witnes, but the title and contents of your book, togeather with your eſtate. Concerning the thing which here you obiect, I have proved alreadie, that*Mat. 15.9 this and‡See before Pag. 83. other Scriptures being ſpoken of vaine worſhippers in the true Church, have ben and may be alledged much more againſt all vaine worſhip in the falſe Church: whether it be yours, or the Papiſts, or anie other whatſoever. And ſaie your ſelf, if the Martyrs have not both ben perſwaded that the Iewes were a true Church, and yet alledged this Scripture againſt the Papiſts, as againſt a falſe Church. Are theſe contrary, I pray you, that they need be reconciled? Then do you reconcile them, for the Martyrs. For ſure I ſee no need of it.