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
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
law of God a blasphemer must doe First it is no sin of persequution to impute blasphemy vnto those that iustly deserve the same for Luke and Paul and Iames did charge sundry men with blasphemy and yet were not to be accounted persequutors for the same as may appeare Act. 18. 6. 1. Tim. 1. 20. Ian. 2. 7. And seing Delescluse hath not proved Mr. Brightmans accusation to be vniust vpon them he can not iustly charge him with persecution Secondly suppose Mr. Br. had bene a persequutor of the Brownistes in this speech yet is he not a persecutour of the brethren so as Delescluse chargeth him so as Mr. Br. noted the angell of the church of England to be in persequuting their brethren that do remaine in communion with them because the Brownistes neither in their owne account nor in Mr. Br. account are brethren but such as separate from the fellowship of the faithfull brethren Thirdly suppose Mr. B. had bene a persecutour of the brethren yet not vnto death as Delescluse doth write for the law of God doth not simply and generally require that every blasphemer should dye as this ignorant and inconsiderate person doth affirme by his false application of the sentence of the law vnto Mr. brightmans speech The law requireth that he which curseth his God and blasphemeth the name of the Lord shal be put to death Lev. 24. 15. 16. but besides this high degree of blasphemy there were many kindes of blasphemy not punishable with death by the law Every reproch slander evill speech either of a mans brother or any part of Gods truth may iustly according to the scriptures be called blasphemy as hath bene signified shewed uÌ„to vs froÌ„ these places Mat. 15. 19. Eph. 4. 31. Tit. 3. 2. 2. Pet. 2. 12. Iude 10. And who will say that all these sinnes were to be punished with death by the magistrate Fourthly suppose Mr. B. had persecuted them to the death yet might there have bene a greater persecution contrary to that which Delescluse by his question doth here pretend in saying what greater persecution could he put vpon those poore foules etc. for there are divers kindes of death some are more painefull shamefull then others some persons are more to be detested in death then others And those that do vniustly lay vpon men the vilest death are greater persequutours then some others that yet put men to death also And in speciall many of the Brownistes are greater persequutours of vs then Delescluse dare yet for shame pretend against Mr. B. for divers of them blush not to say that we have sinned against the holy ghoste that no place of repentance is left vnto vs and all this for testifying against their schisme Now blasphemy against the holy ghost being greater then other blasphemy Matt. 12. 31. Luk. 12. 10. It may hence appeare that they are greater persequutours of vs then Mr. Br. is of them seing in their blinde and rash moode they charge vs with greater blasphemy then Mr. Br. doth them Lalstly if imputation of blasphemy be persequution vnto death then are the Brownistes themselves deadly persequutours of one an other for to omit manifold other proofes hereof they do mutually testify of one an other as of false churches Mr. Iohnson his company say of Mr. Ainsworth his company that they are a schisme and no true church Againe Mr. Ainsw his people do reiect Mr. Iohnsons company yea divers of the Ainsworthians do affirme of the Franciscanes that they are worse then the worlde If some otherâ— should thus speake of them they would account them vncircumcised Phâ—â—â—nes rayling on the host of the living God * blaspheming the name of the Lord his tabernackle c. And thus to bring the collection of Delescluse vpon his owne pate we may say vnto him according to his owne reason who be greater persequutours of the Brownistes then they themselves are mutually vnto one an other Do they not seek one an others blood in making one an other blasphemers The saying of †Zophar the Naamathite is verifyed vpon them The bow of steele striketh them through the arrow is drawen out cometh forth of the body shineth of their gall The Gall of their owne persecution the arrow of their owne obiection woundeth their owne sides is coloured with their blood so that here we may also apply vnto Delesc that which Mr. Ainsworth once * wrote against Mr. Smith How Delescluse is snared in the worke of his owne handes in his owne obiections is worthy to be noted with †Higgaion Selah meditated to the praise of God 42. THe second sin which he layeth vpon Mr. B. is this to be a deceyver of the prince which he notes in this particular for writing against them And how he hath also deceyved the princes he and others of his minde by causing them to banish and keep in banishment their most loyall and faithfull subiectes For deceyving the prince which he obiecteth let him know that though Mr. Brightman had more particularly pleaded against them and for their banishment also yet had he bene no deceyver therein let Delescluse prove this his consequence As touching the causes of their banishment it is cheefely to be layd vpon those that have bene the * hee goates of the separation These by their deceitfull reasons perswasions have mislead seduced many simple persons and have sought out reasons of banishment and misery vnto many by leading them vnto schisme Let those that are yet alive bewaile their offence herein Thirdly seing the Brownistes themselves do now mutually abandon one an others company why do they blame others for doing such thinges as themselves do practise Their reiection of one an other is now more grevous then banishment whiles they banish one an other from the pledges seales of Gods covenant Yea the church of England shewes more favour and kindenes vnto the Brownistes theÌ„ the Francisâ—anes the Ainsworthians do vnto one an other whiles they do both reiect those that are present at the worship or ministery of th' other do also refuse many of them to eate one with an other Do they not now by their owne example teach the magistrates princes vnder which they live to reiect banish them also Fourthly whereas the Francisâ—anes do now professe that at May next they purpose to remoove their habitation to go dwell at Embden divers of the Ainsworthians do affirme that they have so behaved themselves in the place where they now dwell that they are ashamed to tary there any longer therfore that it is time for them to remove and to be gone thence If these thinges be so then is it not the deceit of Mr. Br. others of his minde to procure their banishment as Delescluse obiecteth but it is the shame of their owne wicked conversation that doth banish the
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
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