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
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
vrged Mr. Ainsworth therevnto that openly in their congregation before the rent was made Yea besides respect of the matter it self are they not specially bound for their old covenant sake to shew the Franciscanes their errour that by writing rather then to deale with strangers 19. FRom these instances above mentioned he drawes a terrible conclusion on this manner Therefore it doth necessarily follow that the estate of the church of England is worse then was the estate of those rebelles in the wildernes that there is nothing to be expected from Christe by any member thereof but a powring out of his eternal wrath vpon them In this peremptory sentence which he denounceth against the church of England he takes on him as if he would seeme to be one of those seveÌ„ angelles which having their breastes gâ—â—ded with golden girdles do stand with the vialles of Gods wrath in their handes to powre â—ut â—is vengeance on the wicked but the truth is he is rather in this his doome like one of the angelles of Sathan that accuse the brethren condemning those whom God hath iustiâ—yed By this sentence he doth at once extinguish quench the whole light comfort of the gospell which teacheth that there is no condemnation to those that are in Christe beleeve in his name Rom 3. 28. and 8. 1. For such beleeves there are many in the church of England holding that doctrine of faith iustification whereby the faithfull the saintes in al the reformed churches do hope to enteâ— into life everlasting that whereby the Brownistes themselves must be saved if ever they enter into glory Now to denounce the aeternall wrath of Christe to those that have true faith what is it els but to abolish the gospell to destroy faith to make it of no effect If an angell froÌ„ heaven should come preach vnto vs as Delescluse here hath done yet ought we not to receive him Gal. 1. 8. But here the Brownistes obiect that true fayth shewes it self by workes which they say are apparantly evill in the church of England First their faith sheweth it self by these fruites by their ioy in the Lord their coÌ„tinuall study delight in the word of God their coÌ„tinuall invocatioÌ„ of the name of God every day their delight in the Sabath their love of the godly for the truth sake their vnfeigned sorow for their sinnes their patieÌ„ce for the testimony of Christe sundry other such like fruites which are the vndoubted certaine to kens of true saith Ps 89. 15. Ps 1. 2. Ioel. 2. 32. Esa 56. 4. 5. 6. Mat. 10. 41. 42. Mat. 5. 4. 10. 11. Secondly suppose other of their workes be evill suppose also that their refusall of separation were a sin yet seing it cannot be thought other then a sinne of ignorance that God had not opened their eyes in this matter what an absurd wicked thing is it in this estate to pronounce of them all without exception that there is nothing to be expected from Christe by any member thereof but a powring out of his aeternall wrath vpon them for who can vnderstand his faults and who is it but that he sinnes of ignorance and why not in the mysterie of the separation as well as in others especially it being such a poynt as the members of all other true churches can not comprehend the same Not with standing such errours the members of the church of England may be vpright with the Lord and accepted of him and made partakers of eternall salvation Ps 19. 13. 1. Cor. 13. 9. with 1. Cor. 1. 30. Ps 32. 1. 2. But to salve or mitigate this their vnchristian and hard sentence they tell vs that in such maner of sentences and iudgements they speak respectively viz. that the faithfull in England cannot be accounted true Christians in respect of their ministery in respect of their constitution in respect of their estate being so considered etc. In this exception the Brownistes do shew their vanity in seeking out frivolous pretences to colour their rash iudgements for first when as true and â—ound iudgemeÌ„t is to be given touching the estate of a Christian and an heire of salvation he is then to be considred not by the halfes or by some such and such respects onely but wholly and entirely with all his respectes togather And so a faithfull man considered not apart from his errours and ignorances but considered togather with them and with his faith is yet to be iudged and that absolutely a true Christian an heire of salvation suppose there besome manifest errours and offences vpon him yet his faith shewing it self in other manifest fruites thereof is a visible cover for all his offences seing the Lord hath manifested in his word that faith alone doth iustify and lay hold on everlasting righteousnes Gal. 2. 16. and 3. 7. Eph. 2. 8. and therfore such a one in his outward estate and profession is still a visible Christian notwithstanding any other visible iniquities wherein he ignorantly continueth Secondly when Christe at his last comming shall pronounce iudgement he will not consider men apart froÌ„ their constitution ministery governement etc. he will not say in such respect I condemne thee and in such respect I do iustify thee and save thee but he doth absolutely pronounce sentence either of salvation or condemnation And this iudgement of the Lord is generally manifested in his word according to his word will he iudge at the last day Ioh. 12. 48. Mark 16. 16. and therfore according to this word of the Lord the estate of of meÌ„ is absolutely to be declared without such respective coÌ„siderations and exceptions If the questioÌ„ had bene onely about the reproofe of some particular sin in any persoÌ„ or about the comparing of one person with an other theÌ„ might they have iudged herein respectively for the maÌ„ that is a true ChristiaÌ„ may in some respect be worthily reprehended may in some respect be vnlike vnto others but when the question is about the iudgement of a true Christian about his obteyning of salvation then are such partiall respective considerations idle of no vse A man is in such case either absolutely to be condemned or absolutely to be iustifyed acquit Thirdly according to that respective iudgement every church yea every person in the world should be condemned stand vnder the wrath of God because every church every person doth erre commit sin in that respect being considered apart from Christe is accursed And according to this respective iudment of the Brownistes Delesculse in respect of those eleven corruptions which they lay vpon the reformed churches supposing they were iustly imputed vnto them might in like manner accordingly have pronounced of them all that there is nothing to be expected from Christe by any member thereof but a powring out of his eternall wrath vpon them seing no
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
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