insult there vpon though vve be vvronged yet are not they cleared from the matters there noted vvhich are still in force against them Our desire our purpose is hereafter as occasion opportuinty meanes shal be offred more fully to manifest their Profane schisme by the publishing of those thinges vvhich formerly have bene omitted in the meane time vve do here present vnto the reader a fevv observations vpon the advertisement of Iean Delescluse vvhich he hath vvritten against Mr. Brightman against the communion of saintes His perverse collections for separation dravvne from Mr. Brightman his Testimony vve have here shevved to be vaine vvicked The principles of Brovvnisme vvhich he hath briefely alledged are here breefely ansvverd yet so as that the vanity errour of their separation may be easily discerned hereby This labour vve have vndertaken cheefely for the comfort helpe of those vveake brethren vvho either do not sufficiently vnderstaÌ„d the iniquity of this errour of the Brounistes or els do not duely consider the danger of this schisme vvhich as it dayly breakes it self in pieces so vvould it also break ruinate overthrovv all the churches that should admit receyve the same vvhen corruptions do encrease are maynteyned let the godly vvitnesse against the same but let them not fret vnto separation so shall they vvalke vvith Christe in vvhite Reu. 3. 4. An ansvver vnto the advertisement of Iean Delescluse concerning Mr. Brightman vpon the Apocalyps 1. WHereas in his title he pretendes to advertise the godly reader whom afterward in his Epistle he calles Gentle reader and Christian reader marke how this man doth mocke his reader for by his profession of Brownisme he holdes all the membres of the church of England to be no visible Christians to be without true faith without godlines even eve-ry one as they are publique professours of the gospel in that church yet here in this flattering title of his English booke he dissembles notably as though he would honour record their godlines And thus in the very forehead of his booke his hypocrisy beginnes to shew it self 2. VVHereas in his title he takes on him to advertise every godly reader of Mr. Tho. BrightmaÌ„ his booke how absurd senselesse is it There be many godly readers of Mr. BrightmaÌ„s booke which vnderstaÌ„d no English at al seing it is extant in Latine yet he writes in English to advertise every one of them 3. IN the same place he alledgeth against the church of England that saying of the Prophet 1. Kim 18. 21. How long halt ye betweene two opinions If the lord be God follow him but if Baal be he then go after him This is vniustly applied against them who are assured of their lawfull communion with that church but this sentence or the like may much more fitly be alledged against the divided distracted Brownistes who halt betweene two opinions betweene two communions some halting after the Franciscane order sone limping after the Ainsworthian popular order some hanging in doubt betwixt both opinions so that they dare not ioyne to either of them but walk alone 4. THe first cause which mooved him to put forth this writing in defence of the separatioÌ„ he sets downe in these wordes First the glory of my God etc. what meanes he by this speech of his God in saying the glory of my God Hath he and his flock a speciall God of his owne more then other churches of Christe It is true indeed that David other faithful servants of God do often with the voyce of faith vse to speak of God in this manner my king and my God as Ps 84. 3. but yet if we looke a litle further into the profession of the Brownistes we may easily imagine some other cause of their speaking on this manner for whereas R. R. in his prophecying among the prophets of Mr. Anisworthes company testifyed against their separation iustifyed the church of England to be a true church being for this vniustly excommunicate of that company it was as vniustly defended by Mr. Ainsworth who layd this groud of his excommunicatioÌ„ froÌ„ Deu. 13. 1. 2. c. that he had sought to turne theÌ„ away froÌ„ the Lord their God had perswaded them to go after other Gods and to serve theÌ„ all this onely for perswading that it was lawfull to heare a sermoÌ„ in the church of Engl. to pray with theÌ„ c In this proceeding they declare that they hold the church of Engl. to be withovt the true God in that they coÌ„demne those that ioyne with the same to turne away froÌ„ the Lord their God to go after other Godâ— and therfore no marvel if according to this opinion they speak of their special God intending an other God whom we know not This may yet further appeare in the speech of Delecluse who being blamed for his schisme from the french church hath here vpon coÌ„demned that reformed church as having Christe to be neither their King priest nor Prophet And if they be without Christe then are they without true God Ioh. 2. Epist vers 9. and Ioh. 17. 3. According to these speeches it is not strange nor inconsequent that he should meane his speciall God in the forenamed phrase Iemar the monstroâ—s Arrian pretending that we erre about the nature of Christe doth blasphemously affirme that our God is no better then the planke vnder his foote Delescluse the inordinate Brownist pretending that Christe is not our king doth hereby sacrilegiously both deprive Christe of his people his people of their God their saviour their mediatour And thus while he pretendes the glory of his God he treades vnder his feete the glory of that everlasting God who is the God king of all the reformed churches round about 5. AGaine in his declaratioÌ„ of this first moving cause that made him to publish this treatiâ—e in defence of Brownisme he alledgeth divers scriptures which teach that the people of God ought to be holy as the Lord is holy as namely Levit. 19. 2. 1. Pet. 1. 5. 16. But what meanes he by this Can not the people of God be holy sanctifyed vnlesse they separate from the churches as the Brownistes doe or can they not give glory vnto God without their separation we see the contrary throughout the scriptures the holy Prophets the holy Apostles and Iesus Christe that holy one of God did keepe a holy communion among open obstinate sinners and glorified God thereby and this also in a church that was far more corrupt than that reformed church from which this Delescluse hath schismed and runne away 6. VNto his other allegation that all those that call vpon the name of Christe should depart from iniquitye 2. Tim. 2. 19. It may also be answered as the former that the most holy servants of God most zealous of his glory have kept communion which open sinners as offensiue as 〈…〉 the church
the clearing of himself by writing against the booke if it were a sin to have a hand in the printing thereof theÌ„ how foolish is he to think he could by an after testification cleare himself from that sinne which he did first willingly commit If this were a watrrantable course why might he not still follow his old trade of cardmaking then afterwardes cleare himself by witnessing writing against them why might he not also make idoles or images afterwardes cleare himself froÌ„ partaking with the sinne of Idolatours by testifying against them Behold here the extreme absurdity of the Brownistes who condemne our communioÌ„ where we duely testify against the evilles coÌ„mitted by others whiles they think to iustify themselves by testifying against those evilles in the committing whereof they them selves have a hand 2. In a due testification against evill the testimony ought to be as large as the evill the plaister ought to be as large as the soare but Delescluse is vncertayne whether his writing which he countes a plaister for the errours and sores in Mr. Br. his booke shall ever spread so far as Mr. Br. his booke therfore it must needes be folly and sin in him that shall voluntarily and wilfully publish such thinges which he accountes as stumbling blockes layd before the blinde while he is ignorant whether his labour shall ever come so far as to help the removall thereof in many places 12. IN the subscription of his Epistle he vnder writes thus Thine as thou art the Lordes Iean Delescluse that is to say Thine as thou art a Brewnist and a separatist for al the promises of God and of salvation they do oft appropriate vnto those that separate Those onely they declare to be the lords as touching their visible estate Therfore howsoever he wold seeme to professe friendship it is but hypocrisy beware of such fâ—endes 13. LEt vs now come from his Epistle to the book it self where in he takes vpon him to shew how corruptly Mr. Brightman hath taught that the church of England is not to be separated from not withstanding all the sinnes and abhominations that are in the same This poynt he sets downe both in the title of his booke and in his Epistle againe as the butte or white at which he meanes to shoote against this make he bendes his bow and prepares his arrowes vpon the stinge And for the proofe of this poynt he sets downe ten speciall speeches which Mr. Brightman hath vttred touching the corruptions of the church of England The first speech he alledgeth are these wordes of Mr. Brightman I could not but mourne from the bottome of my heart when I beheld in her Christe loathing vs and very greatly provoked against vs. Here vpon Iean Deslescluse inferreth thus I desire the reader to observe the word which he vseth of Christe lothing them which word of loathing seemeth to be taken from the 95. Psal vers 10. Where the Prophet speaking in the person of the Lord him self sayth that fourty yeares long he had loathed that generation saying that they are a people â—rring in their heart and not knowing his wayes wherfore he sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest So that by Mr. Brightmans owne grant this church of England is in no better estate then were these rebelles in the wildernes all which were consumed and entred not into his rest as he had sworne First this inference of Delescluse is vtterly false for though Mr. B. should grant the same phrase to be vsed both of England Israel yet doth it not follow by this grant that England is in no better estate then those rebelles in the wildernes for the holy ghost often vseth ore the same generall worde or phrase touching divers sinners which yet not with standing may not therfore be all alike so condemned but that some of them may be in better estate then others for example it is sayd that the Lord was angry with Israel in the dayes of Iehoahaz 2. kin 13. 3. It is also sayd in the like phrase of speech that the wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel in the dayes of David 2. Sam. 24. 1. Doth it now follow that Israel in the dayes of David was in no better estate then in the dayes of Iehoahaz The contrary is most evident plaine Israel being at one time a true church at th' other a false church by the confession of the Brownistes themselves It is sayd in one generall phrase I hate all false wayes Ps 119. 128. Now it is one false way to be hated or loathed that the high places were reteyned in the dayes of Iehoash others 2. kin 12. 3. 14. 4. It was an other false way that the goldeÌ„ calves Baal were worshipped by the kinges of Israel doth it now follow that these people were one of them in no better estate then the other because the phrase of hating or loathing might be vsed against both of them Nothing lesse To come neerer vnto them Mr. Robinson accounting it a false way a violation of Gods ordinance in Mr. Ainsworthes company that they have no separation of their aimes among them it followes herevpon that in his account also the word of loathing or hating may be vsed against them seing every false way reteyned is to be loathed And further Mr. Robinson holdes it a false way order of government that is practised in Mr. Iohnsons church which is therfore also to be loathed by them Doth it now follow from hence that by this graunt Mr. Ainsworthes company is in no better estate then Mr. Iohnsons because of the same word of loathing attributed vnto both of them Nothing lesse The matter being thus made plaine vnto them the simplest among them may see what a corrupt blinde maner of reasoning is here vsed by their elder Delescluse Secondly suppose it were granted that the church of Tsrael were in no better estate then Israel in the wildernes yet what is this to the scope and purpose of his booke Doth this prove that the church of England is therfore to be separated from Nay the contrary appeareth hence seing it is vndeniably true that even Israel in the wildernes notwithstanding all their abhominations which the Lord loathed were yet a true church and communion with them was lawfull as appeares in the example of Moses Ioshua Aaron and other faithfull servants of God remayning among them And therfore so might it be with England also though being in no better estate And thus the same arrow that he shootes at vs returnes vpon himself and pearceth the side of his owne separation 14. IN the next place he procedes labours to perswade his reader that the Lord hath more iust cause to wath the church of England then that of the Israelites in the wildernes VVel suppose now that this also were granted vnto him would this prove that we should
A SHIELD OF DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARROVVES OF SCHISME Shot abroad by Iean de L'escluse in his advertisment against Mr. BRIGHTMAN Here vnto is prefixed a declaration touching a booke intituled The profane schisme of the Brovvnistes By Iohn Fovvler Clement Saunders Robert Bulvvarde Luk. 12. vers 2. For there is nothing covered that shall not be Revealed neither hid that shall not be knovvne Printed at Amsterdam by Henry Laurenson Dvvelling vpon the vvater at the signe of the vvriting booke 1612. A declaration touching a booke lately printed entituled The Profane schesme of the Brovvnistes CHristian reader there vvas of late a booke published in London vnder this title The profane schisme of the Brounistes Such a booke indeed vve sent by one of vs to be printed there but in the publishing thereof great iniury hath bene done vnto vs chiefely three vvayes by addition by detraction by alteration of the same For the first besides the addition of sundry harsh vvordes phrases of heresies blasphemies diabolus horrible crimes c. in such place vvhere they vvere not vsed by vs vvhich yet according to the doctrine of the Brovvnistes themselves may iustly be applyed vnto them besides the addition in the title of the booke vvhich is doubly encreased by the publisher thereof beside the addition of the other titles of the severall chapters vvith a nevv table thereof added in stead of that vvhich vve had made besides sundry other such additions there be also added some thinges directly contrary to our meaning such as never came into our heads as namely those vvordes in the end of the preface as also to vvarne all such as haue bene the occasion of those heresies schismes to conforme themselues to the church of God that these caterpillars may no more rise out of them And although vve be c. By those vvordes the reader might conceive as though vve affirmed those ministers vvhich do refuse subscription conformity vnto the prelacy superstitious ceremonies vsed in the church of England to have bene the occasion of Brovvnisme guilty of that schisme c. But the truth is othervvise there vvere no such vvordes vvritten in the booke vvhich vve sent to be printed but they are foysted in obtruded vpon vs by some falsifyer vvithout our knovvledge or consent Our iudgement is that the tyranny of Lord BBs their impositions are a stumbling block vnto many that are vveake vvhich do thereby take occasioÌ„ to fall from the church to runne into schisme VVe assure our selves that if there vvere in the church of England such a reformatioÌ„ of the prelacy ceremonies as is desired by the ministers there is also obteyned in other reformed churches there vvould not theÌ„ be such a defection vnto Brovvnisme as novv the re is VVe knovv indeed that the Brounistes do ioyne vvith the prelates in vpbrayding the ministers vvith this thing vvould seeme to build their separation vpon the testimony of the ministers as appeareth by this booke of Delescluse vvhere he labours to conclude their separation from certaine speeches of Mr. Brightman testifying against the corruptions of the church of England but hovv vniustly absurdly he hath done the same vve hope it vvil evidently appeare by this refutation follvving Secondly there is in summe left out the greatest part of the booke vvhich vve sent to be printed yea in exact account there is not a fourth part there of that is printed In speciall there is not a third part of the preface printed vvherein our reasons for the maner of publishing that booke are conteyned there is left out a large ansvver vnto a narratioÌ„ vvritteÌ„ by Mr. Iohnson touching an offer of conference that vvas made vnto him likevvise the ansvver vnto the groundes of scripture alledged by M. Iohnson in in defence of separation is left out Divers testimonies of Dutch french ministers against theÌ„ be omitted vvith other vvritinges of Iohn Iohnson George Iohnson that should have bene printed The greatest part of the vilest slanders of the Brounistes are left out The greatest number of the chapters by far is omitted that vvhich should have bene the tenth chapter is made the first nine of the first being altogether omitted besides sundry other in the middes of the booke of those chapters that are there no one of theÌ„ is fully set doune in some of theÌ„ more theÌ„ half the matter omitted Divers straÌ„ge matters are noted in the booke but the occasioÌ„ there of the profes thereof vvith the ansvver vnto the vaine cavilles shiftes of the Brounistes about the same are omitted in respect of these omissioÌ„s divers thinges so abruptly set dovvne may seeme more harsh also more incredible vnto the reader so that hereby it may easily appeare hovv vve are iniuried by vnreasonable omissions as vvell as by vniust additions Thirdly for the method order of setting dovvne these thinges that are printed there is great alteratioÌ„ therein also Thinges spokeÌ„ vpoÌ„ one occasioÌ„ are related vpon an other not in their due place The speeches of one maÌ„ are so set doune as if they had bene spokeÌ„ by an other The speeches of divers men are peeced togather as if they had bene spokeÌ„ by one the same person In these such like chaÌ„ges both vve those vvhose testimonies are alledged by vs have receyved some further iniurye Besides these thinges there be also as it appeareth many literall faults in the misprinting of sundry vvordes vvhich do much corrupt the sense of sundry thinges in the booke And though thus many great iniuries be done vnto vs yet do vvee not hitherto fully vnderstaÌ„d by vvhoÌ„ they are done Onely this vve vnderstaÌ„d by a letter seÌ„t froÌ„ Chr. Lavvne vvho vvas eÌ„trusted vvhich this busines that the according to the order in such like cases seeking vnto such as vvere appoynted for the allovvaÌ„ce of bookes to be printed leaving it in the haÌ„ds of a certaine chaplaine of the Archb to get it read over vievved uÌ„till he himself might returne out of the couÌ„try into vvhich he vvas theÌ„ going dovvne before he could come vp to LoÌ„doÌ„ againe he fouÌ„d the booke already printed coÌ„trary to his expectatioÌ„ in the printing thereof so mangled defaced as is above specifyed And hovvsoever vve do novv disclayme this booke above mentioned as none of ours being thus corruptly printed vvith such additions omissions alterations yet do vve still acknovvledge that all the particular matters of fact recorded against the the Brvvonistes in that booke are such tiges as vvere takeÌ„ out of our vvriting for proofe thereof vve are able ready to produce our testimony vvitnesse as occasion shall requiâ—e The most of theÌ„ are testifyed coÌ„fessed by theÌ„selves the most heynous thinges eveÌ„ vnder their ovvne haÌ„d vvriting the rest are such thiÌ„ges as either vve our selves or others vvil vvitnesse And therfore though vve complaine Brovvnistes
then separate from England In no sort for the Lord had more cause to loath the church of Israel in the dayes of Christe then in the wildernes And yet even then also there was a lawfull communion with that church when the measure of their iniquity was greater and when there was a greater then Moses to convince them of that wickednes And thus we see how that still he comes short of the mark he shootes at seing greater abhominations then those of Israel in the desert are yet no sufficient ground of separation 15. FOr the further declaration of this matter let vs a litle examine his particular instances here alledged by him first sayth he that church had a true ministery and true offices and officers and so hath not the church of England by Mr. Brightmans owne graunt First let it be considered how vnworthy a thing it is that this man which is himself an vsurper and a false officer should thus take vpon him to dispute about the ministery and the offices in the churches of God for first when he was yet with Mr. Iohnson he was then a false officer that whole company being in schisme therfore a false church yeelding no lawfull officers 2ly suppose Mr. Iohnsons company had bene a true church and he a true officer in it yet seing he hath now schismed from that company and was also deposed from his office by Mr. Iohnson and his assistants how can he in this schisme be reputed a true minister 3ly when he was yet a member of the french chuch and did there earnestly seek an office after tryall of his giftes he was repelled and iudged insufficient and vnmeete to be a minister Now then shall he that was both Kept out from entring into an office as vnworthy and againe thrust out of an office as vnworthy after he had entred and this both by a true reformed church and by the Brownistes themselves shall this vnworthy person come now and in the middes of his vnworthines pronounce sentence touching the truth or falshood of offices ministeries in the church Secondly let it be considred how he abuseth wrongeth Mr. Brightman in saying that the church of England hath not a true ministery offices officers that by Mr. Brightmans owne graunt for though Mr. Br. do iustly complaine that the church of England wanteth some offices which it should have againe that it hath some officers which it should not have yet doth he not affirme a true ministery to be altogather wanting he doth not deny but that there are some true offices officers therein Thirdly though there be that defect in the ministery of the church of Engl. which Mr. Brighman noteth how doth Delescluse prove from thence that separation must reedes follow for this he bringes not so much as any shew of proofe from the scriptures to iustify such a consequence 16. THat second particular exception which he bringeth touching persecution by the officers in the church of England is againe repeated by him in his tenth speech of Mr. Brightmans which he alledgeth is there answered for which see the 38. section following 17. THe third particular differeÌ„ce which he affirmeth to have bene betwixt Israel Eng. is that their governmeÌ„t in Israel was not a mixt governemeÌ„t partiy of the Egiptians partly of the Moabites and Edomites or Cananeans but simple and and pure according to the true patterne shewed to Moses in the mount but that of England is not so for Mr. Brightman affirmeth it to be partly Romish and partly reformed etc. First if it be true that Mr. Robinson writeth viz. that the church officers the priests levites in the Iewish church to whoÌ„ the charge of the whole congregation for the service of the tabernackle did appertayne had no authority by the order of their office to inflict any censure spiritually vpon the people but onely to interpret the law ett Answ to Mr. Bern. pag. 198. then is all this idle which Delescluse doth here speak of their government If the ecclesiasticall officers did exercise no government at all then is it in vayne to dispute of the purity of a thing that was nothing Secondly if that excommunication or dissynagogueing noted Ioh. 9. 22. was but a Iewish devise and without warrant of the scriptures as both Mr. Robinson doth write and Mr. Smith also hath written before him then was the governmeÌ„t of the Iewes a devised governemeÌ„t an Impure aÌ„d mixt governemeÌ„t partly divine and partly humane and yet not with standing this mixt government we see there was then a lawfull communion that mixture of devised governemeÌ„t was no ground of separation as this Delescluse would vainely collect against Mr. Britghman and against the church of England Thirdly if a mixt governement be a ground of separation then is Mr. Ainsworthes company to be reiected seing it doth exercise a popular confused and mixt government consisting partly in the power of the officers but chiefely in the power of the people And thus the collection of Delescluse serves to overthrow his owne governement And the shame of this their mixed governemeÌ„t which Mr. Iohnson hath affirmed to be worse then the goverement of the church of England doth in this respect lye the more heavily on them in that Mr. Iohnson hath also in a printed booke condemned the same which booke the Ainswort hians have not yet answerd 18. THe fourth particular instance which he bringeth to prove the difference betwixt Israel England is this None of that church sayth he were admitted vnto any office but onely such as were lawfully called therevnto as Aaron was but so it is not in England etc. First it is onely the bare affirmati of Delescluse that sayth of the church of Israel that none were there admitted vnto any office but onely such as were lawfully called as Aaronwas where is his proofe from the scriptures where of he boasted in his Epistle Secondly it is a false affirmation of Delescluse for when Annas Caiaphas did enterchangeably execute the high priestes office as appeareth Luk. 3. 2. Ioh. 11. 51. it was not possible that both of them could be lawfully admitted vnto the execution of that office which was peculiar vnto one man during his life Thirdly seing Mr. Iohnson hath offred to prove vnto Mr. Ainsworth his company that in their popular governement they are like vnto Korah his company ambitiously vsurping an office wherevnto they are not lawfully called that vpon the Korites ground Numb 16. 3. it had bene much fitter that Mr. Ainsworth or Delescluse should have defended cleared themselves of the evill which they lay vpon others by writing against Mr. iohnson about these thinges while he is yet alive to auswer for himself rather then to wriâ—e against Mr. Bright man that is dead now resteth from his labours in the Lord especially seing Mr. iohnson hath so often entreated provoked
sin is in it self veniall al sinnes with out fâ—â—th in him do bring eternall wrath as well one as an other And in like maner Mr. Iohnson holding the same corruptions in the reformed dutch french churches might in this respect say of theÌ„ all as he * sayth of England that they stand all subiect to wrath God imputing this their sinne vnto them For any one of the least sinnes do make men subiect to wrath God imputing the same vnto them Lastly Mr. Iohnson as he telleth vs himself whensoever he vttred his hard sentence against the church of England did alwayes speak with caution and added some of these clauses being so considred in that estate in that 〈◊〉 But here Delescluse without any caution or clause of consideration shuts them vp all vnder eternall wrath makes his arrowes drunâ—ken with the blood of soules will needes have them all to drinck the cup of indignation from his hand with no lesse sin drunkennes of errour then when he had drunken that cup of magis whereof Iacob Iohnson is sayd to have admonished him he doth in this place as vainely condemne the faithfull for no sheepe of Christe as he did then commend the same Iacob Iohnson to be a fit pastour for his sheepe 20. THe second speech of Mr. Brightman alledged to shew that he doth corruptly teach against the separation is this viz. that the most mighty king Henry had expelled the pope but reteyned the popish superstition Note here the folly of Delescluse that would prove a separation in one time by the corruptions superstitions of an other time as though he should say In king Henries time there were many superstitions therfore in Queene Elizabeths time there ought to be a separation notwithstanding all the reformation that was procured by her meanes what sober man would so argue 21. FVrther whereas Delescluse sayth that the pope cannot properly be sayd to be expelled when his doctrine and superstition is retepned it is a vayne Cavill for first if he stand so precisely vpon propriety of speech the pope can not properly be sayd to be expelled no not then where his doctrine and superstition is expelled It is a figurative speech to note the popish doctrine and superstition vnder the name of the pope himself 2ly it is yet a true and a fit speech in Mr. Brightman to say that the pope was expelled when the iurisdiction of the pope and the supremacy formerly annexed vnto his person was denyed and reiected when he was no longer acknowledged to be the head of that church when that which was vniustly arrogated vnto the person of the pope was translated vnto the person of the king as it was in King Henries dayes even as the venetians at this day might very fitly be sayd to expell the pope if they would vtterly deny his supremacy both in civill and Ecclesiastcall causes howsoever they might reteyne many popish superstitions 2. THe third speech of Mr. Bright man which he bringes against him to prove a separation from the church of England is this that there is such a forme of church established as is neither cold nor hote but set in the middes and made of both etc. These wordes Mr. B. vttred in comparing the church of Laodicea England togather as the type and antitype vnto one an other That which he sayth of England he takes froÌ„ Laodicea which is also declared to be neither hote nor cold Rev. 3. 15. 16. so that by this manner of arguing he might as well prove a separation from the church of Laodicea in respect of the lukewarmnes which the holy ghost shewes to have bene found therein But that it is most erroneous so to reason Christe plainely teacheth vs while he telles vs that this church was still a golden candlestick that the angell thereof was a starre in his right hand that he himself would still sup communicate with that church And therfore so also may the church of England be reputed not with standing the same or the like luke warmnes 23. VVIth this third speech he desires that this which he hath set downe for the fift charge may be ioyned where Mr. B. sayth that no other cause can be brought of their lukewarmnes the popish governement mingled with the pure doctrine then the love of riches and honours And what can he conclude hence VVhat though they were covetous ambitious given to the love of riches honors so became lukewarme shall this be a iust cause of separation from the church No for the scribes Pharisees were also covetous ambitious Mat. 23. 5. etc. Luk. 16. 14. yet coÌ„munion with them was lawfull 24. HE desires further that this complaint of lukewarmnes may be compared with that prayse of reformation which Mr. Br. gives vnto the church of England in the title of his epistle dedicatory VVel being compared with the same it may well stand togather with it for reformed churches may yet have lukewarme ministers many other greevous corruptions to be complayned of yea doth not Delescluse condemne himself in this matter for doth not he also in the title of his booke in his epistle written to the English readers entitle theÌ„ with the name of godly reader and Christian reader And is there any god â—ineâ— without reformation Is there any Christian that is not reformed VVhy then may not Mr. B. call those holy reformed whom Delescluse doth call godly and Christian 25. HE demandes still in the same place sayth Is it possible that holynes and vnholynes can raigne togather VVe answer Yea in one the same church in the divers members thereof as in the church of the iewes holynes raygned in Christe his disciples vnholynes raigned in the scribes and Pharisees c. 26. HE yet demandes againe saith Is there any communion betweene Christe and Anti-christe betweene light and darknes betweene Idolles and the true God Can any kingdome any church any family any man submit vnto the governement of Anti-christe and not be defiled VVe answer though Christe Anti-christe be enimies yet the servants of Christe may lawfully communicate in that church where many abhominations of Anti-christe are to be seene sor as francis wingrave a Brownist doth truely acknowledge Every abhomination of Anti-thriste doth not make a church to become Anti-christian for the best churches are subiect to errour and some abhominations of Anti-christe were crept into Christian churches whiles the Apostles lived And yet communion was lawfull therein Even so the children of light the children of darknes did communicate togather in Christes time As for Idolles if they be no other then set formes of read prayer and such like which the Brownistes call idolles communion with them is lawfull enough And for governement though Caiaphas was an Anti-christian vsurper yet did many persons lawfully submit vnto his power Thus hath God himself and his Prophets Christ
an other so that Delescluse may here see how he hath kindled a fire to burne vp himself his owne company For 1. that naughtines raigneth among the Ainsworthians it may appeare by the testimony of Mr. Iohnson who hath oft in publique witnessed of them as of drosse or chaffe which the Lord with his fanne would purge out from them vnder that name of chaffe the the holy ghost doth declare vuto vs the wicked among whom nanghtines raigneth Ps 1. 4. Mat. 3. 12. As for the Franciscanes besides many other greevous thinges some of Mr. Ainsworthes company do testify of them that probable murder and approved whoredomes are tolerated or maynteyned among them Delescluse himself is noted for one of the witnesses 2ly that the hand of God is heavy vpon them appeareth manifestly by the * notable testimony of Mr. Iohnson himself 3ly that the lawes of Christe are not kept among theÌ„ of Mr. Ainsworthes company Mr. Iohnson testifyeth touching their governement Mr. Robinson touching the administration of their deacons in that they have no separation of their almes Thus Delescluse by his owne maner of reasoning doth enwrap himself and his company in the flames of damnation yea in eternall flames of everlasting damnation 30. FVrther Delescluse to prove a separation from that church where naughtines raigneth doth alledge that saying of the Apostle he which coupleth himself with an harlot is one body 1. Cor. 6. 16. But this allegation though repeated * againe by hiu as a speciall ground of their separation is nothing to the purpose the apostle there meaneth that he wich coupleth himself with an harlot by fornication or whoredome that person defileth himself by his wicked act for otherwise it was lawfull for a man to couple himself with an harlot by marying with her as we see in Salmon and Rahab Mat. 1. 5. with Iosh 6. 25. The priestes indeed were forbidden even by mariage to couple them selves with an harlot Lev. 21. 7. 14. that others were so forbidden we reade not But as for ioyning in communion with a church where naughtines raigned it was not forbidden no not to the priestes themselves from Aaron to Zacharie we never read or any godly priestes that did ever separate vpon such a ground a Delescluse doth here pretend 31. VVHereas againe Delescluse noteth that as concerning the outward blessinges of peace and prosperity in earthly thinges by it no church no man can have any assurance to be in the favour of God etc. This note is idle neither hath Mr B. alledged outward prosperity as a marke of of a true church and Delescluse doth abuse Mr. B. by insinuating vnto the reader such a matter for to what end should he els oppose the fame In this note Delescluse doth so fight as one that beateth the ayre fighting with his owne shadow and so offendeth against the example of the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 26. 32. IN the next place to confort his reader against the tediousnes of his short writing he telles vs that he will now begin to draw to an end concerning his charges c. and that he will draw the rest into a short summe But what needed he to do so if there had bene any soundnes in this his so short a writing hath he not already hasted posted so fast on that he hath forgot his reckoning for whereas in the beginning of his booke he hath numbred out ten charges or testimonies of Mr. Brightman touching the corruptions in the church of England hath also promised to declare his minde concerning them notwithstanding this forgetting his method propounded at the beginning forgetting his promise made vnto the reader as though he could not count ten so hath he left out one of his number hath not shewed vs his minde touching the sixt testimony of Mr. B. which he alledged at first Thus we see he makes more hast then good speede Could he not runne except he skip with all by leaping quite over the matter which he propounded promised to handle 33. COme we now vnto the eighth allegation which he bringeth from Mr. Br. against the church of England touching some constitutions and ordinances in the same on this maner excellent ordinances indeed for which the reformed churches may be ashamed First of all observe here his ignorance in the mistranslation of these wordes for as it is signifyed vnto vs by sundry that have more learning then our selves or this Delescluse these latter wordes of Mr. B. prae quibus erubescant reformatae Ecclesiae are not to be translated as here they are set downe by Delescluse but in a quite contrary sense prae quibus signifying not for whith but in comparison whereof the reformed churches may be ashamed And as these two speeches are quite contrary if we should first say thus Delescluse hath written such thinges for which Mr. Ainsworth may be ashamed and then againe on thâ— other side to say Delescluse hath written such thinges in comparison whereof Mr. Ainsworth might be ashamed for the first of cheefe speeches doth declare how ill he hath done to make his fellowes ashamed the second sheweth how well he hath done to shame his fellowes that they can not imitate him even such difference is there betwixt the speech of Mr. B. truely translated and betwixt the ignorant translation thereof by Delescluse in this place And herewithall is to be noted that as there is an jronie or figurative speech in the fiâ—st part of Mr. B. his testimony where he speaketh of excellent ordinances even so also he speakes by the contrary when he telles vs in the latter part thereof how the reformed churches may blush thereat as though they had not the like ordinances but in the translation of Delescluse this jroine is not to be found He telles vs in his Epistle how he hath had a hand both in the translating and printing of Mr. B. his booke that so he might be found guilty of all manner of falsification 1. false printing and glosing as is noted before sect 9. 2ly false allegation as is shewed before sect 27. 3ly false translation as in this place 4ly false interpretation collections throughout his booke Secondly what if the reformed churches may be ashamed of the corruptions 〈◊〉 in the church of England will this prove the * speciall thinge intended by Delesculse in his writing in his allegation of Mr. Br. his speeches will this prove that Mr. Brightman taught corruptly when he sayd that we ought not to separate froÌ„ the church of England Nothing lesse In the time of Christe the jewes had many wicked traditious ordinances customes for which the godly might be ashamed and yet they might not then separate The churches of Ephesus Smyrna might well be ashamed of the manifold corruptions in other of their neighbour churches in Asia yet without separation VVe our selves have often seene such thinges in the Brownistes for
which all that professe the name of Christe might well be ashamed we have seene their contentions disorders confâ—sions so great that even the jewes the professed enimies of Christe being neighbours vnto the Brownistes and dwelling hard by them perceyving their bitter dissensions divisions have laughed them to scorne poynted at them with the finger Thus have they bene a scandall and an offence both to thâ—se with in without the church And now therfore according to the reasoning of Delesclnse they are for this to be reiected separated from 34. DElescluse in his amplification of this fore sayd speech makes a large complaint against the reformed churches shewing that they may be ashamed because they have not dealt so sincerely and plainely with the church of England for reproofe of corruptions in the same c In this complaint observe first how absurdly Delescluse dealeth that being to reprove the dutch french churches writes against them in English which they can not vnderstand why did he not also write against the church of England in french or dutch Secondly note here how he breakes his promise he promised immediately before to be breefe to bring that which remayned into a short summe yet he is now more large and ample in laying out this testimony of Mr. B. then in any of the former In this dealing it seemes he scarse knew or cared what he sayd or did Thirdly let the reader know that the reformed churches have plenteonsly testifyed against the corruptions of the church of England contrary to that which Delescluse doth here pretend for a tast hereof to omit other thinges we desire the reader but to looke vpon these three bookes viz. Abridgement of the booke delivered to his maiesty by ministers of lincol etc. The answer to D. Downehams sermon the scholasticall discourse against the signe of the crosse wherein may be seene the pregnant and abundant testimonies of learned men in the reformed churches both against the hierarchy or prelacy and also against the superstitious ceremonies remayning in the church of England as namely Calvine Beza Musculus Bucer Martyr Bullinger Aretius Zanchius Mornaeus Iunius Sadeel Piscator Polanus Vrsinus Virel Viret Grinaeus Bucanus Goulartius Danaeus Olevian Zepperus Lubbertus Bastingius Snecanus Keckerman with a number more who as they have testifyed against the corruptions maynteyned by the prelates on the one side so have they testifyed against the separation schisme maynteyned by the Brownistes and Anabaptistes on th' other side In so much that both they which plead for the prelacy and they which plead for separation do in like manner esteeme and hold the ministers of the reformed churches as their partyes and adversaries see D. Down hams defence lib. 1. pag. 197. and H. Ainsw counterpoy pag. 15. 35. A Ninth speech of Mr. Brightman alledged by Delescluse is touching the names of the officers of that church that they were vnknowne vnto the church of Christe except the bishops etc. where vpon Delescluse infereth in these wordes And what is this shall then any soule in whom there is but a very small sparkle of the feare of God be so bold as to dare submit vnder the government and guidance of such vnlawfull ministers and ministery Yea verily we see those soules that had very many and great sparkles of the feare of God have submitted themselves vnder the government and guidance of vnlawfull ministers neither hath Delescluse here brought any sound reason to shew the contrary VVe see that in Christes time there were divers officers whose names had not bene heard of in the primitive church of the â—ewes noâ— ever were instituted by any example of former times in that church as namely the names of of lawyers scribes of the people and according to the writing of of the Brownistes the names of Archisynagogues or rulers of the Synagogues Secondly it is evident the godly may lawfully submit themselves vnto the government guidance of such private brethren who in respect of their sects factions superstitious observations have had â—uch names as were formerly vnknowne vnto the church of God who also in respect of their wickednâ—s deserved to have their names â—lotted oâ—t of the register of the saintes This we see in the communion of the godly with the scribes Pharisees And therfore if it be lawful for Christians to submit themselves vnto the counsayles admonitions rebukes of those which for their sin ought to be cast out of the church of God yet are vniustly reteyned If a man may stand vnder the guidance and authority of such admonishers so long as he testifies against their sinnes then may he also stand vnder the government guidance of vnlawfull officers If a man may submit himself vnto one who is vnlawfully a member of the church why not also vnto him who is vnlawfully a minister of the church If a man may submit himself in private vnto the guidance of an vnlawfull brother then why not also vnto the publique guidance of an vnlawfull officer There is more proportion betwixt a member a minister then betwixt a member an excommunicate or an heathen or one that ought to be excommunicate For example Daniel studly Iean Delesculse being both of them deposed from their offices for sin imputed vnto them by the Franciscane Brownistes suppose they were still obstinate in the sinnes imputed vnto them deserving excommunication yet tolerated vnlawfully in this estate being not iudged nor cast out by their church their admonitions for sin either in the first or second place were not to be reiected And if their private admonition might be submitted vnto why not their publique also if they had not bene deposed If in the want of due excommunication the private admonition of an vnlawfull member is of force to be submitted vnto then in the want of iust deposition the publique admonition or other workes of governement exercised by vnlawfull ministers is of force to be submitted vnto This reason is specially to be considred of those Brownistes that mainteyne the popular governement submit vnto the same 36. BVt Delescluse addes his reason why such vnlawfull ministers are not to be submitted vnto For sayth he Are they not all thieves and robbers which enter not in by the dore but climbe vp an other way And will any man of wisedome commit vnto the protection and and keeping of theeves the least part of his worldly goods No none wilde so vnwise for every one â—ndweth that they will but make a pray of them and spoile and rob them And shall any then be so carefull for thinges of so small importance and shall he not care vnto whom he doth commit the guidance of that which is the principall namely of his soule First we do directly affirme that which Delescluse doth so flatly deny Many men of wisedome may will ought to commit vnto the protection