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
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
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
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
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
and his Apostles taught vs both by their word and example and therfore let Delescluse heare the Prophet Esay which he alledgeth turning vnto him and saying vnto the maynteyners of schisme wo vnto them that call that communion evill which the Lord hath shewed to be good and lawfull 27. FRom a fourth speech of Mr. Br. he reasoneth thus Moreover in his fourth charge where he maketh the state of the poore blinde Papistes far better then the condition of the angell of the church of England and that also such as are the angelles such becommeth the church for the most part I do observe that by his owne doctrine the estate of the church of England is worse then Babylon it self which Babylon is graunted by all to be that Synagogne and church of Anti-christe devoted vnto destruction etc. First he falsmes Mr. Br. his speech by adding a degree of comparison which Mr. Briâ—ghtm vsed not in saing that he makes the estate of the poore blinde papistes farr better It had bene far better for Delescluse to have to have omitted that clause to have repeated Mr. Brightmans comparison simply truely with out such addition but it seemes he he favours his owne cause more theÌ„ true dealing Secondely he corrupts falsifies Mr. Brightmans speech againe by saying that he makes the estate of the poore blinde papistes far better then the condition of the angel of the church of England as though Mr. Brightman had spoken generally and without exception touching the whole ministery of the church of England whereas even by Delescluses owne former allegation of the wordes Mr. Br. speakes of those angelles who bewitched with ambition and covetousnes do refuse holy reformation where yet also he leaves out the word onely being a word of restraint vsed by Mr. Brightman of purpose to prevent the cavilles of such honest men as this Delescluse here shewes him self Mr. Brightman sayth that Christe in this place preferreth the blinde papistes onely before those angelles who bewitched with ambition etc. And thus the double falshood of Delescluse appeareth not onely in adding but also in omitting that which was most significant and specially to be considred Thirdly suppose Mr B. had spoken generally of the whole ministery in EnglaÌ„d yet is the observation of Delescluse most false vaine It would not follow therevpon that the estate of the church of England is worse then Babylon it self as he gathereth for even touching those angelles bewitched with ambition and covetousnes refusing holy reformation Mr B. speakes not simply absolutely of theÌ„ that they are worse then the papistes but onely in respect of the greater grace light which they have receyved for their reformation for so he doth also explane himself in the same place Mr B. knew well enough that the angelles or ministers of the church of Roome besides other greater evilles are also bewitched with ambition covetousnes do therfore refuse holy reformation c. onely he noted them to be something more excusable in respect of their ignorance because they knew not their maisters will so as those in England doe we may here fitly tell Delescluse in Mr. Ainsworthes wordes He may much abuse any mans words if that which is spoken respectively he will take and alledge as spoken absolutely VVhat though the Lord do in some respect pâ—efâ—ree Châ—â—tim Kedar before Israel Ier. 2. 10. 11. May it be observed hence that the estate of Israel was simply worse then those heathens or that Israel was to be separated from rather then they The papistes are in some respect worse 〈…〉 followes it not hence that they are simply absolutely worse 〈…〉 of the Ainsworthians that they are worse then the Franâ—â—â—scanes in respect of their contention vnquietnes disorder doth it follow hence that he accountes the AinsworthiaÌ„s to be simply the worse rather to be separated froÌ„ Nothing lesse By these examples let Delescluse learne to see his solly in ga thering such observations 28. AFter this false recitall of Mr. Br. his wordes togather with his false observation vpon the same he makes this question in the same place 〈◊〉 where are then those great prayses of all manner of blessinges vpoÌ„ that church rehearsed in the second artickle but cheefely these spirituall blessinges of the word purely and sincerely taught in it First for those earthly blessinges whereof Mr. B. spake why might they not be found in that church of England suppose it had bene every way worse then Roome How blinde is Delescluse that makes this question so far from the purpose Secondly as for the spirituall blessinges of the word purely taught seing Mr. Br. doth blame but some of the ministers of that church why may not the word be purely and sincerely taught by others that are free from the blame there spoken of 29. A Seventh speech which Delesc bringeth from Mr. B. against the church of England is this that naughtines raigneth in it the hand of God is heavy vpon it and againe that in her the lawes of Christe are not kept Hence he inferreth But what is there then to be done even this that every soule who hath any care of salvation and of escaping the eternall flames of everlasting damnation be carefull to come out with speed from Babylon etc. This conclusion of separation which Delescluse here gathereth denounceth vnder paine of eternall flames of everlasting damnation is vayne for first all that Mr. Br. here sayth of England might also most truely be affirmed of that church of the jewes where in Christe did communicate for there 1. naughtines raigned prevayled in the Herods in the priestes elders scribes Pharisees Sadducees c. Mat. 2. 16. and 12. 24. and 14. 9. and 16. 12. 21. 2ly the hand of God was heavy vpoÌ„ them in their manifold oppressions miseries which they endured vnder the government of the Romanes their substitutes Mat. 2. 16. and 3. 10. and 17. 24. etc. Luk. 13. 1. and 2. 1. Ioh. 11. 48. 3ly the lawes of Christ were not kept there Mat. 15. 3. Ioh. 15. 20. 22. And now by the seÌ„teÌ„ce of Delescluse eternall flames of evelasting damnatioÌ„ must be the portion of Christe his Disciples that coÌ„municated with that church who will not detest such vile coÌ„clusions which are like vnto arrowes shot even against the breaste of Christe Iesus himself As he that makes himself mad casteth firebrandes arrowes and mortall thinges prov 26. 18. so Delescluse in this place casting abroad his firebrandes of eternall damnation shooting his arrowes against heaven throwing mortall thinges even vpon the Lord of life what doth he els herein but declare himself to be a mad man why might not this his booke which he entitles an Ad-vertisement be much more fitly entitled a Mad-vertisement Secondly all that Mr. Br. affirmeth in this place touching England hath bene affirmed by the Brownistes themselves touching one
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
keeping of theeves not onely the least part but the greatest part of their worldly goods For all tyrants a wicked rulers that oppresse spoyle their subiectes are theeves robbers Prov. 28. 15. Esa 1. 23. Hos 5. 1. Mic. 3. 1. 2. etc. Yea these great thieves are in divers respectes more vile then other outpurses or then thâ—se that rob by the high way side Yet vnto the protection keeping of these tyrantes men both of wisedome godlines may ought to commit both their lives their goods Those which teach men not to submit vnto such are guilty of rebellion treason Though Saul was a tyrant an oppressour 1. Sam. 8. 11. etc. Yet was submission vnto him lawfull necessary men of wisedome did lawfully commit themselves their goods vnto his protection Thus the ground of Delescluse his argument is taken away Secondly men of wisedome may ought also sometimes to commit the guidance of their soules vnto thieves for all false stewardes vnfaithfull ministers that teach not the flock of God but keep back his counsell are indeed theeves also steale the word of the Lord from their neighbours Ier. 23. 30. 1. Cor. 4. 1. 2. And such thieves there were many in Israel such were many of the scribes lawyers in Christes time Mat. 23. 13. etc. Luk. 11. 52. And yet our saviour requires his servants to submit vnto such to heare their doctrine though with this caution to beware of their leaven Mat. 16. 12. Men might lawfully receive their sound doctrine while they discerned that which was erroneous tooke heed of the same The scribes in their corrupt and wicked administration or execution of their office were notorious theeves a theevish administration is as bad as a thievisâ— entrance yet we see the ministery of such might be submitted vnto Thirdly if the ministery of thieves and robbers may not be submitted vnto then may not the ministery of schismatiques be submitted vnto for schismatitiques that steale away themselves and others from the coÌ„munion of of the faith full are in this respect no better then theeves And therfore by this his owne argument the ministery of Delescluse is not to be submitted vnto because as a schismatique he hath stollen away himself both from the reformed french church of old and againe of late from the Franciscane Brownistes who being formerly in his account a true church how could he so renounce and disclayme their communion without schisme 37. YEt further he bringes here a ground of scripture oft abused by the Brownistes to prove their separation in these wordes Let them alone therfore for as our saviour sayth they are blinde leaders of the blinde and both of them shall surely fall into the pit The letting alone here spokeÌ„ of by Christe is to be vnderstood in respect of the offence which the Pharisees tooke vniustly at the wordes of Christe that the Disciples should not be troubled therewith as appeareth Mat. 15. 12. 14. Our saviour by his example did there teach vs to testify against corruptions as he himself there did against the traditions of the Pharisees vers 3. 7. etc. But as for separation from such guides our saviour sayth nothing yea that he meant no such thing it appeareth evidently by the communion which he and his Apostles did afterwardes still reteyne in that church not separating from the same And though they were in many thinges blinde leaders yet not so far as that simply to heare them was vnlawfull but to follow them blindely with out examining of that which they sayd by the word of God such heedlesse and vndiscreete hearing and following is forbidden to heare them as the Beraeans heard Paul was not vnlawfull And if blinde guides are to be taken heed of then we do further appeale vnto the conscience of the indifferent reader whether it were a safer thing to submit vnto the teaching of Mr. Brightman or of Delescluse his censurer to heare such as M. Perkins Mr. Greeneham M. Phillips such like teachers or to commit their soules to the instruction of Thomas Cocky Ihon Hales Francis Iesop and such like blinde guides as do leade both Mr. Ainsworth himself and his whole company Let those that know these two sorts of guides consider duely of the matter 38. THe tenth speech of Mr. Brightman he setteth downe on this manner finally the angell of the Church of England is both a pexsecuter of the brethren and a deceyver of the prince VVhence he inferreth with an exclamation Marvelous and is he still for all this the angell of the Church in Mr. Brightmans iudgement In mine doubtlesse he is altogather otherwise even that angell of the bottomlesse pit who is a king over those locustes etc. The ministers of the Iewish Church in Christes time were both persecutours of the brethren and deceyvers of the princes and Governours and yet were still the angell of that Church They persecuted Christe and sought to murder him they seduced Pilate and brought him against his owne conscience to condemne Christe Luk. 23. 23. 24. Yet was not separation required neither yet did the faithfull reiect their comunion Secondly is not the angell of the separation both a persequâ—tour of the brethren and a deceyver or the prince Yes certenly for the first 〈◊〉 â—hey persequute one an other both in Worde and deede Their hard speeches of one other are manifold they scorne one an other and laugh at one an other They do also mutually Iudge condemne and excommunicate one an other for the second poynt of deceyving the prince it is most evident in speciall in their apology dedicated vnto the kings majestie wherein as much as in them lay they have sought to draw him vnto errour This appeareth by Mr. Iohnsons owne confession and recantation wherein he hath recalled sundry of his errours conteyned in that booke But the Ainsworthians do still persist notwithstanding the admonition given by Mr. Iohnson So that by this reason the separatists themselves are to be separated from we see hereby how the peece of ordinance wherewith they shoote at others doth recoyle vpon themselves wound their owne communion 39. NOw remaines the conclusion of this writing to be considred where after the rehersall of Mr. Brightm his wordes declaring their wicked and blasphemous errour who do so fall away from this church as if Christe were banished wholly from hence etc Delescluse doth then cry out against him And so by this what soever sinnes errours wickednesses abhominatioÌ„s he hath shewed before to be both in the angell and in the church it self all is now cured by this salve 〈◊〉 most miserable dawbing with vntempered morter First note his false dealing and abuse of Mr. Br. as though he had sayd or meant that all the sinnes errours corruptions of the church of England had bene cured salved by this his testimony against the separation as though he could
not have reproved the schisme of the Brownistes from the church of England except he had allowed all the corruptions therein whereas on the contrary we have shewed how vainely and senselessely Delescluse hath trifeled to prove a separation from the allegations and testimonies of Mr Brightman above noted Yea even in this very place Mr. Br. telleth vs in expresse wordes that we may neither take pleasure in them as some mayntainers of those corrup doe neither may we forsake and fall from the church as the Brownistes doe he shewes in the same place that he wisheth health of minde vnto both these sorts that are in a contrary extremity And this his wish shewes that he thought these coâ—â—uptions still to be vncured therfore is he most iniuriously charged with the contrary by Delescluse Secondly as for his exclamation of most miserable dawbing with vntemâ—â—â—ed morter it is a notable instance of the impudency of the Brownistes who in the middes of their ignorance do so boldly open a mouth against the learnedest ministers in the churches of God And much more iustly may it be returned vpon Delescluse his owne head whose consequences collections for separatioÌ„ from Mr. Br. his speeches are all of them vntempered morter all his reasoning a most miseâ—â—â— dawbing The iniquity of this his exclamation may easily be seene in this that he doth not refute Mr. Br. his reasons alledged in this place but passes theÌ„ over in silence Mr. Br. shewes of Laodicea that though the angell thereof was miserable and poore and blinde and naked yet communion was lawfull Christ still supped with the same he shewes withall that though the like misery be also found in England as being the Antitype of Laodicea yet that there is a presence of Christe communicating with them which he proves further from the experience of the Brownistes themselves compared with the scriptures Rom. 10. 13. etc. Rev. 3. 20. It had bene fitter for del to have given a sound answer vnto these reasons then with a sound of wordes to have made so lowde an exclamation Thirdly by the private and publique confession and testimony of Delescluse there is a miserable dawbing with vntempred morter among the Brownistes themselves for this Del. hath often avouched and affirmed that there is but one sound warrant and example in the scriptures to stay men from anabaptisme namely the example of the apostate Israelites that were not recircumcised when they ioyned againe with Iudah in the worship of God were it not for this example he sayth that he himself would be rebaptised If this be true that he sayth then is both Mr. Clifton and Mr. Iohnson a miserable dawber seing they †both have vsed many other arguments and a multitude of scriptures against rebaptisation If there be but one sound argument then all the other are vnsound and false and consequently vntempered morter Now these other reasons being vsed by the Franciscanes while he was yet among them why did he not testify against their vn sound doctrine and convince them of their errour how could he endure to see such a number of holy scriptures perverted falsifyed and abused by Mr. Ioh. and Mr. Clift and yet hold his peace how could he suffer them to give so great advantage vnto Mr. Smith and other anabaptistes by alledging against them so many colourable pretences and shadowes of reason wherein he thought there was no substance VVhat sincerity is there in the course of these men that see one an others daubing yet wink at the same VVhy may we not think that Delesc doth now also discerne aÌ„d behold some dawbing in Mr. Ainsw Tho. Cocky Ioh. Hales and that he winkes at it as he did before in Mr. Ioh. and Mr. Clifton Thus may we here see touching Delescluse the onely governing elder of the Ainsworthians that as there is but one step betwixt him and anabaptisme by his owne confession so is there never a step betwixt him and the path of hypocrisye he that sees his fellowes dawbing with vntempered morter and lets them alone in their sin must needes be a miserable dawber himself he that professeth himself a separatist from all knowne sinners and yet sees his fellowes sinning openly in print by abusing the scriptures in great measure and still continuing in this offence and yet tolerates them herein how can he be esteemed otherwise then as an apparant hypocrite 40. ONce more he yet renewes his former reasoning and exclaming sayth vnto vs Can any preach in the office of an angell purely and sincerely who is a theefe and a robber shall any administer purely who is not lawfully called therevnto as Aaron was Can any vnlawfull minister administer lawfully the seales of Gods covenant vnto dogges and swyne purely and sincerely O ceasse to do evill learne to do good God who is iealous etc. For the substance of this obiection it is twise answered before section 18. 36. yet for the further stopping of his wide mouth that without cause talketh so much of theeves robbers vnlawfull ministers dogges swine etc. we do here demand of him can any preach in the office of an angell purely and sincerely who is an apostata and hath for saken the most holy fayth as H. A. in the account of all the Brownistes hath done Can any administer purely who for their schisme have bene deposed from their ministery continuing still in their schisme as H. A. and this Del. have bene Can the seales of Gods covenant be administred purely sincerely vnto such as are reiected as dogges swine vnto such as William Clerke Richard Benet George Parker etc. who for their sin wickednes are excommunicated by Mr. Iohnson his company consequently esteemed as dogges swine though yet reteyned in communion by Mr. Ainsworthes company which by this meanes in the iudgement of the Brownists themselves is become a stye of swine one body with excommunicates shall those who by the Franciscanes are accounted vnworthy to gather vp the crummes vnder their table become stewards of the house to break the bread vnto the children of the Ainsworthians shall those that are iudged vnworthy to heare the worde be allowed for prophets to preach the word Yet thus it is in Thomas Cocky and Iohn Hales who being by Mr. Iohnson his company delivered vnto satan are yet set vp for prophets by Mr. Ainsworth and his company to draw men from those snares of Satan wherein themselves do ly enwrapped 41. AFter this he seekes to lay two great sinnes vpon Mr. Brightman for charging them with blasphemous errour c. And first he would shew him to be a persecutour of the brethren that in these wordes for what greater persecution could he put vpon those poore soules which have separated theÌ„selves from those evilles by himself set downe then to accuse or charge them of blasphemy Yea it is such a persecution as that it is vnto death for by the
images As those teares can not iustify their devotion no more can these teares powred forth by Delescluse for the idoll of their separation iustify his devotion Thirdly mark his flattery of the king calling him their most noble and wise prince It is the property of true nobility to try the spirits of men by the scripture as the beraeans did Act. 17. 11. If therfore he be noble and most noble they will not deny but that he hath examined their spirits the scriptures alledged by them presented vnto his maiesty in their petitions then withall if he be most wise how is it that he can not see the mysterie of their separation having their cheefe reasons proofes layd open before him Yea by the sentence of this Delesc there is nothing to be * expected by him from Christe but the powring out of his aeternall wrath vpon him nothing as touching his visible estate but aeternall flames of everlasting damnation If this be his abiect base estate how is he most noble or most wise Fourthly we do here demand of Delescluse touching this his prayer whether it be lawfull for any of his flock in the reading of his booke withall of this his prayer therein to lift vp their hearts vnto the Lord to desire the same thing to say Amen with him vnto this his petition If they may not then is it a sory prayer which may not be assented vnto by an other then is he a sory guide to go before his flock in such desires as it is not lawfull for them to folow him but if they may pray the same thing with him in the reading of his wordes may say Amen vnto his wish then consider on th' other side how according to the doctrine of the Brownistes he makes himself guilty of idolatry for they tell vs that read prayer and set formes of prayer are idolles the vse of them idolatry Mr. Ainâ—worth in speciall hath compared them to the golden calves that Ieâ—oboam erected if this be so then hath Delescluse here in the end of his booke set vp a golden calfe by setting downe this forme of prayer then all the Brownistes that in the reading thereof do lift vp their hearts in prayer to desire the same thing all these we say do then bow downe vnto his calfe worship the same and so commit idolatry 48. HAsting to a finall conclusion he sayth And so â—do here end though many more thinges might be sayd touching separation from evill and adioyning or following that which is good Mark here how he paynts the face of his separation in calling it a separation from evill etc. whereas indeed it is a separation from that which is good because of some evill mixed therewith a reiection of the godly for the wicked sake which is a thing most wicked Gen. 18. 25. Here he will end but it had bene better for him not to have begun He telles vs many more thinges might be sayd touching separation we tell him also that many more thinges may be sayd against the same The iudicious reader may easily discerne that in all these arrowes which he hath shot he hath still missed the marke his bow of brasse is broken all his vaine reasoninges against Mr. Bright are turned vpon his owne head If he have more thinges to say hereafter let him see that they be of more weight then these 49. LAst of all he addeth And in deed in a word we shall not read from the beginning of the world to this day that there was ever any true church of God truely established but by separation and therfore this people not to be blasphemers but true worshippers of God Behold here a heape of falshood couched vp togather in a few wordes for a farewell to his reader For first it is false which he sayth of establishing churches by separation from the beginning of the world Let him shew how the church of God before the flood was established by such a separation as the Brownistes have in their writinges described vnto vs we have here his bare word onely which is of no credit his asseveration here vsed by him viz. in deed in a word is but a word without deed without truth Secondly it is false which he sayth of establishing true churches by separation vnto this day And this not onely in respect of the church of England which by Mr. Iohnsons confession is a true church though not established by the separation of the Bâ—ownistes but also in respect of the dutch french churches which by the Brownistes them selves are acknowâ—ledged for true churches yet were not establisâ—hed by the separation in question Yea they do reiect condemne the separation of the Brownistes as schisme Do these churches then practise and reteyne a separation without their knowledge against their willes contrary to their doctrine Or if they do thus maintaine a separation not being aware thereof shall this vnwitting vnwilling separation be a true ground foundation of their church shall their ignorant practise establish them iustify their estate we would faine know of Delescluse how these thinges can stand sound Thirdly suppose this assertion of his touching separation were true yet his inference therevpon is false in that he sayth and therfore this people not to be blasphemers Though a man hold separation yet may he be a blasphemer in many other respectes For example Mr. Smith holding the separation of the Brownistes was yet a blasphemer for that which he wrote against the vse of the translated originall scriptures in the worship of God And so Mr. Ihonson still holding the separation is yet by the Ainsworthians accounted a blasphemer one that speakes evill of the way of God in respect of his new interpretation of Mat. 18. Delescluse reasons here as though there was no blasphemy but against separation how blindely partially let the reader iudge Fourthly he bringes yet an other false inference from the former assertion in saying therfore this people not to be blasphemers but true worshippers of God for the former assertion touching separation is mainteyned by Anabaptistes yea by some of the Arrians doth it herevpon follow that they are true worshippers of God Nothing lesse Yet such is the fruit of Delescluse his reasoning further whereas the Brownistes do acknowledge the dutch french churches to be a separate people true churches established by separation yet condemne the read prayer vsed by them as being a false and idolatrous worship it may hence appeare evidently that his argument for proofe of their true worship is very vaine and false He may here see that the truth of Gods worship doth not depend vpon separation Prov. 12. 15. The vvay of a foole is right in his ovvne eyes But he that heareth counsell is vvise Errata PAg. 3. l. 31. reade thinges pag. 6. l. 18. and to convert them from going 〈◊〉 p. 7. li. 15. dealing pag. 11. l. 15. therfore p. 13. l. 5. affirmation p. 18. l. 15. for pag. 19. in the margent read â—ev chap. 3. p. 19. l. 39. preferre pag. 25. l. 39. knoweth p. 28. l. 26. corruptions pag. â—0 l. 17. for pag. 35. l. 34. fuly FINIS * Epist to Read pag. 3. * Ps 43. 1. 2 3. 4. Esa 1. 10. Maâ— 26. â—7 Act. 3. 1. * Ps 119. â— 128. 1. Tim. 5. â—1 * AdvertisemeÌ„t pag. 5 Pag. 8. 9. Answ 1. * R. Clift answ to Mr. Sm. 154. 155. H. Ains counterp pag. 7. 8. 2. â—dvertis â—ig 9. â—nsw 2. 3. Answ 1. 2. * Answ to to Mr. Ber. pag. 187. Parallel pag. 61. 3. Answ 2. 3. Advertis â—ag 9. Answ Ob. Answ â— 2. Except Ans to Mr. Iac. pag. 7. 8. Answ 1. 2. 3. Answ to Mr. Iac. pag. 7. 8. 4. Advertis pag. 5. â— Answ â—â—vertis â—5 10. â—â—sw â—nsw Answ to Mr. Stone pag. 2. Advertâ—s pag. 10. â—â—â—w 1 2 * â—dvertis â—â—g 5. †See latiâ—â—â—e edition â—f Mr. B. â—â—n kev. cha 〈◊〉 vers 15. â—ag 106. 3. 〈…〉 * Advertiâ—â— pag. 10. Answ 1. 2. Adverâ—â— pag. 11. Answ 1. 2. Expos of â—â—at 18. â—â—pist â—dvertis â—ag 14. Advertis pag. â—1 * Advert pag. 3. â—… Advertisâ— p. 6. 1â—… Answ 1â— 2. â—dvertis â—â—pist p. 3. â—dvertis â—â—g 12. Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Advertis p. 7. 12 13. Answ 1. 2. Advertis pag. 13. Answ 1. 2. 3 Advertis pag. 13. â—nsw 1. 2. 3. Advertis 〈◊〉 7. 13 â—â—sw 1. 2. Advertis pag. 13. 14 Answ 1. 2. 3. Plea for â—â—faâ—ts p. 〈◊〉 49. etc. â—â—rief treat â—â—â—gt anaba 〈◊〉 16. etc. Advertiâ—… pag. 1â— Answ Advertis pag. 14. Answ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. See 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 Iob. 20. 2â— 25. Ans to Mâ— Sm. pa. 4â— Psal 9. 1â— Advertis pag. 14. Answ 1. 2. Rob. Broâ—ne H. Barow Fran. IohnsoÌ„ H. Ainsworth Iohn Smith Iohn RobinsoÌ„ c. 3. 4. 5. â—ee profaâ—â— eschisme â—f Brown â—ag 81. Prov. 28. 3 6. Advertis pag. 14. Answ 1. Pro. 27. 1. 2. 3. 4. â—â—vertis 14. â—â—sw 1. 2. Advertis pag. 15. Answ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. â—â—nting 〈◊〉 fox 〈◊〉 1. 6. 7. â—rofane â—â—hisme of â—â—ownist â—ag 80. Advertis 〈◊〉 15. Answ 1. 2. Advertis pag. 15. Answ 1. 2. 3. Advertis pa. 9. 11 4. Advertis pa. 15. Answ Advertis pag. 15. Answ 1. 2. 3. 4.