CErtaine Articles against Dan. Studley, giuen to M. Iohnson in their publike Congregation before their Elders, to desire his deposition from his office, of being an Elder.

article 1 First, for his filthinesse vsed to­wards his wiues daughter, with that most vngodly allegation of Scripture for the defence thereof. This particular is of old knowne vnto their Eldership, and modestie forbids vs to set downe the manner of it, it is so impudent.

article 2 Secondly, for writing a most vngodly letter, containing in it many vile and vngodly speeches, not meet to proceed out of any Christians mouth, much lesse to be written by an Elder of the Church of Christ, in as much as writing is more adui­sed & deliberate than speech: also, this letter being so long, that it is supposed it cost him more than a moneths worke to copie and recopie the same, being aboue 300 long lines close ruled; some of this letter being in most abhominable verses.

article 3 Thirdly, for teaching many wicked and vngodly songs and rimes vnto children when he kept schoole; in stead of cate­chising them, and learning them to know God, hee taught them vaine, idle, and wicked songs.

article 4 Fourthly, for disclosing the counsaile of the Eldership to Marie May in some particulars, as wee can plainely proue in due time and place. This was a principall thing alledged to depose M. de Cluse.

article 5 Fifthly, for his many lasciuious attempts to a young maid [Page 16] now of late, with his beastly behauior to entice her to satis­fie his owne lust, vnmeet to be named.

To the second and to the fift, Edward Tolwine, Iohn Clif­ton, Ellen Vpton, Henrie Homline subscribed.

article 6 Sixtly, there were brought sixteene articles against him, to proue the tenor and course of his life to be partiall; where­of two were proued, and acknowledged by him, and the re­sidue of sixteene were also confessed in generall.

article 7 Seuenthly also, at the same time it was proued, that hee tooke part with Iudith Holder in knowne euill.

article 8 Eightly, for counsailing Marie May to lye with her husband before they were married.

A consideration of the common defences and excuses made for the restraining of Dan. Studley in his office.

charge 1 FIrst it is pleaded often by M. Iohnson, That the offences committed by Dan. Studley are his personall sinnes, and not the sinnes of his administration.

Answere.

Hereunto we answere; first, That suppose his offences were onely personall sinnes, yet might they be a iust cause of deposition. Abiathars sinne and Reubens sinne were their personall sinnes: Likewise Adulterie, Incest, Murder, Trea­son, Drunkennesse, Periurie, and Blasphemie, are personall sinnes, and yet iust causes of deposition; and therefore wee hold it a great error in M. Iohnson so to plead for him.

Secondly, the sinnes of Dan. Studley are not onely per­sonall sinnes, but also the sinnes of his administration; as namely, his partialitie in peruerting iustice and iudgement, his fauouring of the guiltie, and his oppressing of the inno­cent, and his taking of bribes to this end; as namely, ioynts of meat and bottles of wine from Mistresse M.M. as hath been confessed by her selfe: without which gifts (as she saith) she had not continued so long in the Church.

[Page 17]Againe it is pleaded for him, That he hath acknowledged his offence, and that he hath repented for the same.

Answere.

Hereunto we answere; first: That suppose he had truely repented; yet is not his repentance sufficient to retaine him in office. An adulterer, traytor, murtherer, may, through Gods mercie, truly repent; and yet such ought to be deposed from their office.

Secondly, the repentance of Dan. Studley is not to be ac­cepted, because hee still seekes to excuse and diminish his faults; as namely, by pleading for himselfe touching master Ainsworths daughter, that he knowes not whether she be male or female. For, if this were so, as he saith (though in­deed the contrarie is affirmed and testified against him) yet is it a praise of the maid who resisted his leaud attempts; and not his praise. Who doubts but that he would haue knowne whether shee had been man or woman, if shee would haue yeelded to his lust? This and such like excuses are no tokens of heartie repentance.

Further, it is often obiected vnto vs by master Iohnson, That by our dealing against Dan. Studley We do (with Cham) vncouer the nakednesse of our Father, and therefore are in dan­ger of the Curse that was laid vpon him by Noah.

First, we answere, It is not we, but Dan. Studley himselfe, that hath in shamefull and horrible manner vncouered the nakednesse of his owne flesh; not as Noah that once slipped, and was in his sleepe vncouered ignorantly and against his will, Gen. 9.24. but sundrie times, being awake, wittingly and purposely vncouered himselfe, and shewed his naked­nesse; and this vnto the eyes of a maid: euen as the Serpent, that shewed the forbidden fruit vnto the woman. To what good end could this be?

Secondly, as he hath vncouered his owne nakednesse: so hath he also violently vncouered the nakednesse of others, of diuers maids; being such a seruant of Sinne and strange Lust, [Page 18] he is liker vnto Cham, and Canaan, whose curse was to be a seruant of seruants. Is not his nose and eares to bee cut for these things?

All these are answered, as in the former Excommunica­tions.

The testimonie of the Dutch Church concerning the Brownists.

WHen as they sent their messengers with some questi­ons vnto the Dutch Eldership, they receiued this answere from them, That they did not acknowledge their As­semblie to be an Ecclesiasticall Assemblie, or a lawfull Church. And when master Iohnson and others of them were instant to heare reasons of this answere from them; it was further an­swered, They would do it if they saw it needfull, or if they found any thing that was worthie of answere.

The testimonie of the Magistracie of Amsterdam con­cerning the Brownists.

THe Magistrates both of old, against master White, and now of late in suit about their meeting-house; when they sought to lay in their action in the name of the Church, they were repelled by the Magistrates that are members of the Dutch Church; they would not receiue complaint from them in the qualitie or name of a Church, or the name of any Elder or Deacon, but as from priuate men; The Ma­gistrates told them that they held them not as a Church, but as a Sect.

M. Iohnson his vnnaturall dealing with his brother.

WE G. Iohnson his discourse of troubles and excom. p. 36. 37read, that his brother George being in extreame want, liuing vpon bread and water onely, Master Iohnson did then hide his face from his poore brother, and shut vp the bowels of compassion against him, whilest others insulted against the afflicted, and bad him sell his Bookes, his Couerlet, and his Cloke also, as others witnesse. Doth ex­communication breake the bond of nature, and dissolue the duties of kindred and brotherhood?

The iniquitie of Richard Mansfield appea­reth notable.

1 By his cruell tasking, op­pressing, & exacting the task imposed; by hāging weights of lead vpon his maids arme while she spinned, as though otherwise the worke had bin too light and easie: and the inflicting a cruell punnish­ment when the worke was not accomplished. Though the Egyptian bondage was grieuous, yet amongest all [Page 33] Pharaohs taske-masters we reade of none called Mans­field, nor yet of none so wan­tonly cruell as he.

2 By a shamefull and vile manner of whipping his Eli. Ap. and Do. Ha. maids starke naked, being a­bout eighteene years of age. All the particular accidents therein are too vile to bee spoken.

3 By his cruel nipping and pinching of his maids by the armes, in so much that the skinne of Do. Ha. one of them first rent with whipping, and af­ter crushed with nipping, hath broken out into soares, the filthy matter wherof hath come running downe to the wrists of her hands, as shee hath sit at her wheele.

4 By his most barbarous and beastly manner of hang­ing vp his Do Ha. maid by the hāds starke naked, first binding her [Page 34] hands with cords, tying them vp to some high place, then taking away the thing wher­on she stood, and so letting her hang from the ground while hee spent diuers rods vpon her: yea and after this whipping he let her hāg so a great while before he would take her downe. Alas for the daughters of the separation, is this the libertie of thē that account themselues the only free people? The virgins of Sion in the daies of their cap­tiuitie found more fauour a­mong the Babylonians, then this D. Hanwell not handled well among the Brownists.

5 By executing iudgement vpon his maid, sometime be­fore the shew of any fault was committed: as for exam­ple, by calling his maid out of her bedde betimes in the morning, not suffering her to put on her cloathes, but ma­king her further to strip her selfe, making her also to fetch out the rods, then telling her also that he knew she would not finish her taske by the weekes end, and that there­fore it was best to giue her [Page 35] correction before-hand, and so before the fault commit­ted, inflicted the punishment that might afterwards happi­ly be deserued.

6 By vsing such rigour to­wards his seruant in exacting the taske of worke imposed, that her worke being to spin bombasine wooll, shee hath often for feare been glad to eat vp the wooll, which shee could not spin time enough, lest some remnant of the wooll being seen and found, it might therby appeare that her taske was not finished: and so shee her selfe to haue bin brought like a sheep be­fore the shearer, before Mās­field the stripper, and so not onely to haue had her wooll or woollen garments to bee stript off her backe, but also to haue had her skin shorne with the sharpe sheares of Mansfields cruell rods.

[Page 36]7 By his barbarous and beastly crueltie in compel­ling his maid to eate her owne excrements: for when she had once for feare eaten her wooll, and the same a­gaine was from time to time purged out of her bodie, ac­cording to the course of na­ture, noted by our Sauiour, Matth. 15.17. Whatsoeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, yet this monstrous wretch com­ming to the knowledge here of; did not only rake and take forth out of the draught that which the Lord would haue to be Deut. 23.13. couered: but further in most abominable manner hee shamed not to take that dung, and by violence to put it into her mouth, and with a crane of brasse to thrust it downe her throat, in so much that the poore maid crying miserably out for water, was almost slockned before shee could get redresse against the vexation of this loathsome tormentor, (hath the like e­uer been read or heard of?) It was a grieuous vision and a type of great miserie, when the Lord commanded Ezechiel, to prepare & bake [Page 37] his bread Ezech. 4 12.13.14.15.16.17 with the dung that commeth out of man, to signi­fy the astonishmēt that should ensue of the euils threatened; and the Lord in mercie spa­red the Prophet, and at his praier did mitigate the thing; but behold in this R. M. a more grieuous sight or visi­on, a type of astonishment, not to prepare meate with dung, but to eat that dung as meat, not by commandemēt of the [...]d, but by the lust of the diuell: It was horrible in Rab­shaketh a Pagan, to threaten his enemies with the eating of their owne dung through famine; but it was more hor­rible, sauage and vnhumane in Ric. Mansfield, a brother, euen a brother of the separa­tion, to vse this crueltie, and with his own hands by force to do it, not vnto an enemie, but vnto a sister of the sepa­ration, &c.

[Page 38]8 By making his maides immediately after this whip­ping and hard vsage to sing songs of mirth in the middest of their sorrow and teares, contrarie to their feeling, and contrarie to the order of the Apostle, Iam. 5.13. And not onely this, but also by moc­king in prophane manner at their singing; and for ex­ample, the distressed person beginning to sing, Ps. 51. O Lord consider my distresse, &c. hee would then in derision speak vnto them, Oh you are in great distresse sure &c. Ps. 137.1.2.3.4.As the cruell scoffing Babylonians of old required songs and mirth of the Iewes in their captiuitie, saying vnto them, Sing vs one of the songs of Zi­on; euen then when the Iewes sate weeping by the riuers of Babell, and had hanged vp their Harps vpon the Willowes: so this cruell scoffing Brownist did then re­quire songs and mirth of his captiue maides, when they had hanged vp the Harpes of their mirth, and had rather to haue fit weeping than sin­ging; yea, and constrained thē to sing so as the Babylo­nians could not do the Iews.

[Page 39]9 By alledging Scripture (after the manner of the Brownists) to defend & main­taine the crueltie which hee vsed towards his maides, as namely, That if a man smite his seruant, or his maid, with a rod, and they die not vnder his hand, but continue a day or two dayes, he should not be pu­nished, because they are his money. Exod. 21.20, 21. Whereas this Scripture can be no warrant for his cru­eltie; both because his maids were no bondslaues vnto him, bought with his mo­ney, as also because that law was in peculiar to the Iewes, and euen then was a iudiciall Statute, and did not free the offendour from all guilt of sinne, but onely from the pu­nishment of the ciuile Ma­gistrate.

[Page 40]10 By his carnall securi­tie in the middest of all his impietie; by his vsuall slee­ping in the time of Gods worship: and this not onely when M. Iohnson preached, (for then he plainely profes­sed, that hee did settle him­selfe to sleepe, accounting M. Iohnson a false Teacher, and vnworthie to be hearke­ned vnto) but thus also hee slept, when M. Ainsworth taught. And yet further, which is more strange, hee did not onely sleepe whiles other preached and prayed, but euen when himselfe hath beene praying at home with his familie, his manner hath beene to fall asleepe in the middest of his prayer, as di­uers then present haue testi­fied.

11 By his notable hypo­crisie in the middest of all his iniquitie; and this not onely in his generall Sepera­tion, according to which (together with the rest of his companions) hee sayth vnto all the reformed Chur­ches in the world, Stand a­part, I am purer and holier than you: Nor yet onely by [Page 41] separating from other Fran­ciscan separatists, and namely from Dan. Studley, whom in speciall manner hee con­demneth, and sayth vnto him, Stand apart Studley, for I am holier than thou. But further, euen aboue many o­ther of M. Ainsworths com­panie, wherein he resteth, he pretendeth more puritie, is more smooth in his words, stricter in the separation, and makes greater shew of holi­nesse and pietie.

The iniquitie of Daniel Studley appeares notable.

1 By his oppression and preuenting of Iustice tho­row the whole tenour of his administration, as hee himselfe being pressed and prosecuted by some of ma­ster Ainsworths people hath beene brought to acknow­ledge in generall. The ter­rour and feare of Studley haue bin heauier thā weights of lead vppon the fainting [Page 33] armes of the poore people, that they durst not deale a­gainst him. Though the Pharisies laid heauy burthens vpon other mens shoulders, Mat. 23. yet among them al, we read of none called Stud­ley, nor yet of any one whose manifold oppressions are so often witnessed.

2 By a shamefull and vile manner of dealing with one euen of the same maids, who comming out of the hands of Mansfield, fell into the hands of Studley & was saine to cry out of Studley, as well as shee had done of Māsfield before.

3 By his cruel nipping and pinching euen of his owne wife, as she her selfe hath te­stified vnto diuers, and is in part noted before. Many peo­ple talke of Fairies nippes, and of the blew arms they make; but it is hard to say whether Fairies of the separation doe nip harder.

4 Studley indeed in this point dealt more gently with the Eli. Ap. maid; whom though he drew and haled violently at [Page 34] the first, yet did he not hang her vp so cruelly, but laid her and threw her vpon his bed in more easie maner. And yet in matters of suite and questi­on, by the threeds of his sub­still shifts hee doth as it were tye and bind the hāds of ma­ny, both men and women, which stand hanging in the cords of doubt and feare, wai­ting long for an issue, and yet put off with delayes. And yet not so, but that he himself al­so hath now long time hung in feare, with the cord of de position, as it were about his neck, waiting whē he should be turned off from the ladder of his dignitie.

5 By executing iudgement vpon himselfe before the Iudges of the Congregation had pronoūced the sentence of cōdemnation against him. For as Achitophel and Iudas that hanged themselues be­fore the time, and as those theeues that murther them­selues before the time to pre­uent the sentence of the law, cannot be defended therein; so Daniel Studley deposing himselfe, and leauing his of­fice before sentence, whether [Page 35] of despaire to keepe it, seeing the people so against him, or whether in hypocrisie & po­licie to moue the people vn­to commiseration, alwaies his vntimely and vnorderly executing of himselfe cannot bee iustified, howsoeuer the cause of his condemnation might be ten times more iust then the cause that Mans­field had against his maid.

6 By vsing such rigor to­wards his wife, in threatning & beating her cōtrary to that of the Apostle, Col. 3.19. in so much that by his cruelty, she hath sought, though not to eat her wooll, yet to eate her word, by labouring that shee might not be called to speak those things which she knew of her husband, & had alrea­die told in secret; yea & hath charged some to whom shee complained of her miseries, that they should not vtter the same during her life, for feare of his rage against her. And yet the greatnes of her misery hath made her to opē her grief; & the regard of her word would not suffer her to deny the same, when she was called to account for it.

[Page 36]7 By his tyrannie com­mon vnto him with other of the separation, in drawing those that had forsaken their error to returne vnto their vomit againe, and to eate vp, though not the excrements of their bodies, yet the excre­ments of their error. It is most ordinary with the Brownists to charge those that leaue their schisme and returne vn­to the cōmunion of the true Churches to be as dogs retur­ned to their vomit: as though the fellowship of the Saints, in the holy things of God in other true Churches, were but as the vomit of dogges, whereas indeed their separa­tion is but as the excrements and dung of schismatikes; vn­to which dung notwithstan­ding they are often drawne to returne, and to eate vp the same. As for example, Edward Benet hauing begun to purge out some of the excrements, first by entertaining ciuill cō ­munion with the Church of England, so farre as to marry a wife from thence, and after­terwards in spirituall com­munion by hearing master Burges; when as after all he was brought againe to re­pent [Page 37] for these things: what did he else but returne to his own excrements? Many such examples might be alleaged, wherin as many among them haue been vehement, so Dan. Studley, especially in these cases hath bin most seuere, so that as in respect of his poli­cies he is generally noted for a Matchieuellian, so in respect of his tyrannie for a Mans­filian, that with Mansfield seekes to bring and enforce men vnto the eating of their owne dung. Esa. 36.12. Againe, as this is done indeed, so in the accoūt of the other Separatists, both of master Ainsworthes and master Robinsons companie, the Franciscans being many wayes become notable Apo­stataes, returning into errors about ministerie and gouern­ment from which they see­med to be purged, in respect of this apostasie, they can be accounted no better then dung-eaters, and dogges re­turning to their vomit in the estimation of other Brow­nists: and those which like Fra. Iohnson, and Dan. Stud­ley do most vrge hereunto, can be accounted no better then Mansuilians.

[Page 38]8 By teaching his schol­lers (the little children which learned of him) not the songs of Sion, not the Psalmes of Dauid (for that is an vse that Studley hath oft condemned) but filthie, vnsauorie, & rot­ten rimes, such as wee are a­shamed and loth to print or repeat the same, neyther meane wee to doe it, vnlesse wee bee further vrged there­unto. The children in Master Ainsworths companie, [...] then he taught, haue not yet forgotten them. H. Barrow scoffing at the Preachers in the Church of England, tels in his Discouerie, How their mouth distilles, and their lippes drop downe such old parables, &c. But much more iustly might it haue beene said of Studley, the auncient Elder, Prophet, and Preacher in the Church of the Brownists, that his mouth hath distilled, and his lippes dropped downe such old parables, as might farre better become the streetes of Sodome than of Sion, being indeede such vncleane and stinking stuffe as any Christi­an eares might iustly abhorre to heare their children repea­ting of the same.

[Page 39]9 By alledging Scripture in like manner to iustifie his filthie behauior towards his wiues daughter: being re­proued for his vncleane dis­coueries, not to be named, the prophane wretch sought to defend himselfe by the ex­ample of Salomons searching out of all secrets. Is there not here iust cause to exclaime against him, as M. Iohnson in another place doth against M. Iacob? Fran. Iohnsons answere to M. Iac. p. 32. O shamelesse mouth, O vnchristian heart! Can any godlesse Atheist abuse the Scriptures more horribly thā this filthie Studley herein hath done? De Cluse their El­der should haue bin deposed for discouering the secrets of their Consistorie: whereup­on we would demand of M. Iohnson these three questi­ons: first, whether De Cluse his vncouering of secrets, or Studleyes searching out of se­crets, be a greater sinne? se­condly, whether the secrets of their Consistorie, or the se­crets of Studleyes priuat contemplation be greater secrets? thirdly, whether it had not bin as iust to haue deposed Stud­ley betimes, as to haue deposed De Cluse so hastily. Further, whether Studley for defending his filthinesse, or Mansfield for defending his crueltie, haue more horribly and wickedly prophaned the name of God, wee leaue to be disputed be­twixt the Franciscans and the Mansvilians.

[Page 40]10 By the like securitie in his wicked course; his manner being also to sleepe in time of publike worship, though an Elder, and sitting in a throne in a high and e­minent place, whereby his offence became more offen­siue and notorious. These circumstances therefore be­ing considered on both sides, it may bee some question, Whether of these two slee­pers, Mansfield or Studley, haue deserued the more shame, and whether of them be the more slouenly slee­per.

11 By his notable hypo­crisie in the middest of all his iniquitie: He sayth with Mansfield vnto all the re­formed Churches on earth, Stand apart, I am holier than you, I must touch no vncleane thing; your worship is Apo­stasie, if I should ioyne with you. The like he now sayth vnto the Mansvilian Sepa­ratists, [Page 41] and euen vnto Mans­field himselfe, whose wicked­nesse he much condemned, when as vpon speciall occa­sion it was made knowne vnto him. And besides this, euen aboue many of the Franciscane Separatists, his companions, he is smooth in wordes, strict in separation, full of religious protestati­ons, and can cunningly al­ledge the sinnes of the chie­fest Saints to cloke his impi­etie, as though hee were as holy as the faithfullest ser­uant of God vpon earth.

Of these two, and sundrie other such like, there may iustly be verified this Prouerbe,

IN the writings and dealings of George Iohn­son, there appeares more simplicitie & plain­nesse then in Francis, whose politique shifts and courses are as the way of an Eagle, in the ayre: now such courses are much to be su­spected, whereas commonly plaine dealing and honest dea­ling are as louing companions, that go hand in hand toge­ther. To omit manifold instances of this crooked and vncer­taine dealing of Francis Iohnson, let this one authentique testimony thereof, giuen both by the French and Dutch Mi­nisters, deputed of their Presbiteries to be considered indif­ferently.

Francis Iohnson excommunicateth his father and brother.

1 TO curse any man rashly and vniustly, is sinne; but to curse parents is more vile.

2 But in M. Iohnson, the pure Separatist, father of the Frā ­ciscan order, for him to curse his own father is yet more vile.

3 When hee did this, and drew his whole company to consent and approue thereof, it was the more vile, for poyso­ning others with his sin.

[Page 61]4 This curse being not a common reproch or euil speech, but the heauie curse of excommunication in giuing his father to the diuell: is not this more fearefull?

5 This censure giuen out vpon so sleight a cause, yea so vniust a cause, while the father sought peace betwixt his chil­dren; was it not the more horrible for the son so to enter­taine the father a stranger, so to condemne him for conten­tion, that passed the seas only to make peace?

6 This done so violently and cruelly, that no aduice, coun­sell, no nor threats of the Dutch Church might restraine or stay the rage of Saint Francis.

7 This done against such a father as had bin at so great cost in bringing vp his son to learning, & he to vse his Sophistrie, euen against his Father: how vile!

8 Thus to iudge and condemne his father, who also with so much labor, cost and griefe had sued to sundry Iudges and nobles in England for releasing of that son; as may appear by the generall copies of those humble petitions and supplicati­ons which Iohn Iohnson made for his sons Francis and George vnto the high Commissioners; and to others.

Furthermore, in that M. Iohnson did thus proceed to excō ­municat his father, after he had before cōdemned his brother George, this also doth aggrauate his offence: for the reiection of his brother first might something haue softened his heart, and the conscience thereof might haue staied him from grea­ter crueltie towards his father.

Lastly, in that M. Francis did continue & persist obstinatly vnto the death of his father without reuocation of his error, or recōciliation to his father, sending his father downe to the graue with this curse vpon his backe, rolling the stone of his censure vpon the graues mouth, sealing it vp with his cōsent, as it were engrauing the sentence of excōmunication for an Epitaph vpon his fathers tombe; in all this he hath filled the measure of his iniquity, and so encreased both the height of his sin, and waight of his iudgement, vnlesse in time he [...]udge himselfe and repent his wickednesse.

How they curse and excommunicate one another.

MAster Smith in his Epistle to the Reader.Character of the beast, comparing himselfe vnto Caligula a monstrous beast, vseth these words touching them of the Separation; I could wish (saieth he) as the tyrant wished concerning the people of Rome, that all their heads were ioyned into one, and all their strength compri­sed into one writing, that with the sword of the Spirit, it might be smitten off at once, &c. As master Smith wished to be, so hath master Iohnson laboured to be, euen as Caligula, or as Nero, and worse than Nero. It is recorded of Nero, That hee set Rome on fire, that in the meane time hee might sing Ho­mers verses which hee made vpon the burning of Troy. But master Iohnson hath set Ierusalem on fire, by kindling the wilde fire of Separation, euen vpon true Churches, through his schismaticall doctrine, that in the meane time he might sing the wordes of the Angell, spoken vpon the destruction of Rome, saying; It is fallen, it is fallen, Babylon that great, &c. Nero is said to haue slaine his owne mother, and to haue ript vp her belly, to look into her wombe, where once hee had laine; Francis Iohnson is said to haue slaine his Fa­ther with the sword of Excommunication, and with the knife of his sharpe schisme to haue slaine his mother church, and to haue rent and ript open her wombe, wherein hee ac­knowledgeth himselfe to haue beene regenerate and borne anew.

Nero is said to haue slaine Seneca the Philosopher his master, that taught him: S. Francis with the sword of his censure, hath cut off all his Teachers in England, that in­structed him in learning, hath also cut off his speciall Tea­cher M. Ainsworth, and deposed him from his office, though once he praysed him as Preface to D.B. Sect. 1. his worke-fellow to the Kingdome of God. And further, as those Tyrants Caligula and Nero did rage cruelly and strangely towards their owne kindred, so haue these Separatists done the like: for whom will they [Page 63] spare that spare not their owne parents? If wee make a computation of the persons that haue beene led into this Schisme of Brownisme, we shall not find one of tenne, but their curse is lying vpon them. Yea, there is not a Brownist aliue this day, but either hee hath (or at least by their rule should haue) the curse lying vpon his head, and his commu­nion auoided as an vncleane thing; euery one is deuouring another, euery one eating the flesh off his brothers arme, and euery one drunken with anothers bloud. As for the an­cient companie of the Brownists, that were vnder the feeding of Browne himselfe, those that cursed the reprouers of pride therein, were swept away as dung by the testimonie of George Iohnson, and not one of them aliue in his time that conti­nued faithfull, but became Apostataes. Not to speake of the manifold curses that flew abroad in the time of Barrow, nor yet of the manifold curses which the companie of the Brownists remayning in London haue oft layed vpon one a­nother, one halfe deuouring another at once; consider those that remaine in these parts of the Low Countries at this time.

M. Iohnson and his companie are now accursed and auoi­ded by M. Ainsworth and his companie.

M. Ainsworth and his companie are againe reiected and auoided by M. Iohnson and his.

M. Smith and his companie are reiected both of M. Iohn­son and M. Ainsworth.

M. Robinson and his companie holding M. Iohnson and his to be in Apostasie by their owne grounds, must auoid them.

And M. Iohnson him againe, for taking part with M. Ains­worth in his Schisme against him.

And by this reckoning, where is there one of them that can lift vp his head this day without a curse vpon it? Which of them can say, I am free from the curse? As for those strag­ling Brownists that walke alone, as they auoid all, so are they auoided and reiected by all the rest. Is not this a cursing [Page 64] and a cursed generation, cursed euen by their owne mouth, by their owne sentence, by their owne rules both of doctrine and practise.

But of all the separation, it is M. Iohnson that hath the haughtie eyes aboue them all; it is S. Francis, whose loftie lookes are noted and obserued of those that know him and haue to deale with him. Master Ainsworth, though a Sepa­ratist, yet is he well knowne to be farre more moderate in his carriage, and lookes not halfe so high. Master Clifton, though a Teacher of the Franciscanes, yet is he knowne to be farre from the arrogancie of the other; yea, he is pitied as being a bondslaue vnto S. Francis. Master Smith him­selfe, though drunken with the dregges of error, and strange phantasies (the beginning and ground whereof he boasteth to haue sucked from his tutor S. Francis) yet is he in his de­meanour nothing so haughtie and proud, as his Tutor de­clares himselfe: But for further proofe of the vncouth pride and arrogancie of S. Francis, let vs heare the testimonie of his owne father.

PART. 1.

HAuing seene the reproach which this genera­tion of slanderers layeth vpon others which condemne their separation; let vs consider how they whet their teeth against one ano­ther mutually.

To begin with master Iohnson, and to let him haue the first place in reproching, and the preheminence in biting, he telleth master Ainsworth, and his companie, that they are [Page 71] Schismatikes, and that therefore they are no true Church: And thus he sets them in a worse estate then he places Rome in, which he now acknowledgeth a true Church: Reuelat. 11.8.According to his account a Romist, a Papist, is in a better estate for the constitution of their Church, then is the Ainsworthian. Rome is spiritually Egypt and Sodome, as master Iohnson tells vs: that master Ainsworths company is not so true a Church as Rome is, and therefore in a worse estate then Sodome or Egypt, and consequētly are to look for greater plagues then the plagues of Egypt, and sorer condemnation then the fire & brimstone which was rained from heauen vpon the Sodomites. Master Iohnson tells them that vnlesse Rome were a true Church, their Baptisme could not be true Baptisme: Hence it followes that master Ainsworths Church being no true Church, there can bee no true Baptisme, but such as are there baptised by master Ainsworth are to be re-baptised: Though the Infants baptised in Englād or in Rome are not to be re-baptised, yet the Ainsworthians must; The practise of this is to be expected when any Infants come with the reuolting parents from the Ainsworthians vnto the Franciscans, who vnto them must become Anabaptists. Againe, master Iohnsons ordinarie speech, occasioned by the Schisme and departure of master Ainsworths people from him, is this, viz. That God stands with his fanne in his hand, and that God would purge his floore, and take the chaffe from the wheat: Thus he noteth master Ainsworths company to be but Drosse, and as Chaffe for the fire; the reason why he thus sets his teeth vpon them, is, because they forsooke him, in that he hath changed his gouernment. And since that time he hath spoken of them as of the vncircumcised Philistims, comparing them to Gath and Askalon vpon this occasion of reprouing some of vs, for keeping company with some of master Ainsworths people, saying we had declared the wickednesse of Studley in Gath and Ashkalon; vpon this occasion they may put him in mind of his Answ. to ma­ster Whites pre­face to the Reader. p. 1.2.words concerning master White, they may tell him of the two sorts of aduersaries which the Church hath: The one of [Page 72] such as be without: the other of such as arise from within the Church it selfe. Both heauie enemies: but the latter farre more grieuous, many wayes: They may further proceed and say vn­to him in his owne words which he vseth against M. White, Of late hath risen vp one Francis Iohnson despitefully reuiling vs, and wickedly blaspheming the name and Tabernacle of the Lord. A man that was himselfe heretofore not onely a ioyned member, but also a Minister among vs, and hath often in our publike meeting before vs all, with his owne mouth, testified his consent with vs, in the faith which we still professe, from which he is now reuolted, and of which he is become a notable aduer­sarie, setting himselfe tooth and naile (what he can) against vs and our cause: and that both priuately and publikely, as now himselfe hath manifested to the world. So as himselfe, &c.

Master Iohnson also did so reason against M. Ainsworth a­bout their gouernment, that master Ainsworth hath oft told him, he did ouerthrow the constitution of their Church: and master Robinson hath so written vnto him, that with his new grounds hee would ouerthrow the constitution of their Church; which writing being openly read in their meeting-house: master Iohnson hath thereupon said, let master Robin­son then looke to the constitution of his Church: And this being so; must they not of necessity thinke his teeth to be as kniues and swords, that doth so without pitie deuour the constitution of their Church?

And moreouer, master Iohnson hath declared master Ains­worths people to be so wilfully blind, and deafe, and harde­ned with the fatnesse of obstinacie in their erroneous course, that hee applied and denounced against them that fearefull and terrible prophesie, Act. 28.25.26.27. yea he acknow­ledged that it was Gods speciall prouidence once more to bring againe master Ainsworths people after they had depar­ted from him, that they might heare that heauie rebuke ap­plied vnto them: And therefore while hee gaue them such memorable farewell, how can they deny but that his tongue was as a sharpe sword to consume them?

[Page 73]Further, whereas there is but one Elder de Cluse that went with M. Ainsworth, when he carried away the Church from the Franciscans, what doe the Franciscans say of him? It is testified of him by Iacob Iohnson now an Elder with ma­ster Francis Iohnson, as also by M. M. that he is a notable drunkard, yea such a drunkard, so farre oppressed with drin­king, that he hath bin scarce able to go; and as his body hath bin opprest, so his mind & vnderstanding also, insomuch that Iacob Iohnson admonishing him of his drunkennes, hee was not capable of his admonition, but began to talke of other matters, viz. How fit Iacob Iohnson would be for the Pastor of a church, &c. what purity is to be expected in that church, where he that should be che chiefe is so scandalous, where there is but one gouerning Elder, and he a drunkard? How bewitched are those people, that seeking purity doe ioyne to such pollution? Thus do the Franciscans by their testimo­nie set their teeth vpon the Ainsworthians; but what say they to master Robinson and his companie? whereas maister Ro­binson in his booke doth vainely boast of the beauteous e­state of their Church against maister Barnard in these same words; Iohn Robin­sons answer to R.B. p. 212. 213. But for our selues Master Barnard, and that whereof we take experience in this our popularity, as you terme it; I tel you, that if euer I saw the beuty of Sion, & the glory of God filling his tabernacle, it hath been in the manifestation of the diuers graces of God in the Church in that heauenly harmony & comly order, wherein by the grace of God we are set and walke: wherein if your eies had but seene the brethrens sober and modest carriage one towards an other, their humble and willing submission vnto their guides in the Lord, their tender compassion towards the weake, their feruent zeale against scandalous offendors, and their long suffering towardes all, you would (I am perswaded) change your mind, and be compelled to take vp your parable and blesse where you purposed to curse, as Balaam did, Num. 23. But whatsoeuer you and all others doe, these our experimentall comforts, neyther you, nor any other shall take from vs. Whereas master Smith also in his booke doth vainly boast against the [Page 74] same M. Bern, and being in the same order of popularity with M. Robinson, saying; Iohn Smiths paralell p 70. O M. Ber. if you knew but the comfort and power of Gods ordinances, of admonition & excommunication, as we do (blessed be God) in some measure, and that reformati­on which is in some of vs therby you would be so wonderfully ra­uished with the power of Gods ordinances, as you would acknow­ledge the church to be terrible as an army with baners, & yet a­miable, louely comly & beutifull: insomuch as Christ saith, that the loue of the church is faire, she wounds his hart with one of hir eies &c. Touching both these boasters of their popular go­uernment & estate, consider the Iudgement and Sentence of master Iohnson, who hath often times passed this censure vp­on them, that the order of popularity which they pleade for is, The confusion of Korah and his companie: often hath hee affirmed in their publique meeting, that the pretences which they aledge for the power of the people in iudging of causes, are no better than the plea of Korah, when hee said against Moses and Aaron: You take too much vpon you, seeing all the Congregation is holy, euery one of them, and the Lord is a­mong them; wherefore then lift yee your selues aboue the Con­gregation of the Lord? Num. 16.3. Thus doth M. Iohnson by his Sentence obscure their beauty, and staine the brightnesse of their glorie, in shewing them to be Korites, a rebellious route, pleaders for confusion, vsurpers rising vp against Moses and Aaron; And in this estate, seeing the like sinnes procure the like iudgement, what can these popular Korites expect, but as Korah for taking fire in his censure was consumed with fire proceeding from the Lord, and his followers swal­lowed vp quick of the earth, which opened hir mouth to de­uoure them; euen so these new Korites taking in hand such fi­ery censures & vnlawfull iudgements should also be consu­med with the fire of their vniust censures and excommunica­tions; & that their followers and disciples should be swallo­wed vp quicke, by the gaping mouth of an earthly, sensual, & carnall contention? But M. Smith & M. Robinson insist against M. Barnard, alleaging their experience & experimentall com­forts [Page 75] in their popular estate; Oh M. Bern. if you knew but the comfort (saith M. Smith) if your eies had but seen it, saith M. Ro­binson: wel, to come to experiēce with them, M. Iohnson may tell them, he hath knowne their popular order; his eies haue seene it, and this, before euer their eies saw it, and with long experience hath he seene and considered the same, yea in re­spect of his experience M. Smith & M. Robinson are but noui­ces & punies, that came but yesterday to this practise, where­in M. Iohnson hath bin long exercised: And what saith master Iohnson vpon his fight, knowledge and long experience? He saith not as M. Robinson foolishly flatters himself, & imagins that M. Bern. would speake and Take vp his parable to blesse where he purposed to curse as Balaam. No, M. Iohnson takes vp his parable quite contrary; where he once blessed himselfe & others in that estate, he now vpon experience taks vp his pa­rable & curseth that popular order, by proclaming the woful fruits therof. And as M Ber. makes the same to be the nurse of confusion, the mother of schisme, the breeder of contention, euen so M. Iohnson himself now declares it to be Fra. Iohnson exposition of Matth. 18.17. prefat. p. 1. a great means & speciall occasion of strange opinions & aberations, of lamentable diuisions, of opposing & despising the Elders gouernment, of emu­lation & debate among people, with sundry other euills arising & spreading themselues daily, to the great dishonor of God, & their owne continuall griefe, and much reproach from others abroad. Thus in steed of the glory of the Lord filling his Tabernacle, wherof M. Robinson boasts, M. Iohnson tells vs of an horrible confusiō filling their meeting-house to the great dishonor of God; Insteed of the manifestation of the diuers graces of God, M. Ioh. tells of the manifestation of diuers works of the flesh & the diuil; insteed of heauenly harmony & comly order M. Robinson dreams of, M. Iohn tells of hellish disorder, of strāge opinions and aberations; Insteed of the brethrens sober carri­age, M. Iohnson tells of lamentable contentions & diuisions; Insteed of the humble & willing submission to guides which M. Robinson prates of, M. Iohnson tells of opposing & despising the Elders gouernement: and finally, howsoeuer master Ro­binson [Page 76] tell M. Bern. that neither he, nor any other, shall take experimentall comforts from them, yet here we see M. Iohns. hath taken them away, & by his testimony, which is in this matter much more to bee respected than M. Robinsons late experience, these experimentall comforts do lie in the dust.

Againe, whereas M. Robinson disputeth on this manner, Iohn Robin­sons answer to M B. pa. 170. Wel, the words are cleare as the Sunne, tell the Church, that is, the congregation or assembly &c. M. Iohnson on the contra­ry side compares this interpretation to the erroneous expo­sition of the Papists & Anabaptists, insisting vpon the letter of the scripture, peruerting Christs words: Fra Iohnson expos of Matt. 18, pref. pag. 1. This is my body &c. Teach all nations, and baptise them &c. Sweare not at all; Re­sist not euill &c. While M. Robinson accounteth the words as cleare as the Sun for his purpose, while M. Iohnson counts his interpretation erroneous, euen as the most grosse, popish & anabaptasticall expositions; what can M. Robinson and his disciples think of M. Iohns. words herein, but that his exposi­ton is as the smoake of that bottomles pit that riseth to dark their cleere Sun with the grosenes therof? And while M. Ioh. like such a locust in their eies obscures their glorious truth, & hereby declares them to be Korites & the children of con­fusion: what can they else iudge of him, but as an horrible slanderer? therfore besides his other slanders, euen in their ac­count he is to be reckned amōg this generation of slanderers, whose teeth are as swords, & their iawes as kniues &c. M. Iohn. for the further manifestation of M. Robins. errors since that time also brought M. Robins. book against M. Bern. into their meeting-house, & there before the congregation made a so­lemne testification against the manifold errors contained in it, which he disclaimed, & not only so, but wrote letters to M. Robinson to rebuke him for the same. Dan. Studley the prin­cipal. Franciscan is so apt in reproach, that he runs vpon the letter, making as it were an alphabet of slander, hauing it so perfect as his A.B.C For triall hereof see how he grinds his teeth against Sam. Fuller, a deacon of M. Robinsons company, whom with his friends he describes as being The flowers of Studleyes e­loquent letter to Sam. Fuller. ignorant idiots, [Page 77] Noddy Nabalites, dogged Doegs, fairefaced Pharises, shame­lesse Shemeites, malicious Machiuillians; Thus doth this Alphabeticall slanderer florish among them, with the tanting and flanting figures of his prophane conceited spirit. And ei­ther M. Robinsons company is a cage of vncleane birds, and a knot of vile persons, or else Da. Studly is a notable Rhetori­call railer, which sets such a range of sharp teeth vpon them.

To conclude and seale vp this point of the Franciscan slan­ders, let the testimony of his owne brother George he heere produced against him, who witnesseth of Francis being their Pastor, that he George Iohns. Discourse. page 21. changed the voice and tune of a comfortable shepheard to an vnsauory scoffing, inueighing, yelling, and cruell hunting of the soules, whom he ought to strengthen and comfort.

Againe, Habel Iohnson tells vs how he rebuked Cain Iohn­son openly for Page 34. peruerting, wresting, and abusing the Scriptures, as also for making the pulpit a place to reuenge himselfe, and to vomit out his vile and filthy affections: And marke what he ad­deth, but he neither then, nor yet repenteth thereof, neither could George Iohnson obtaine of the Church to draw him to repen­tance: but he hauing with D. Stud. once gotten head, he did what he list, & as he list. Further, Hab. Ioh. witnesseth of the Page 43. fretting, railing reuiling, scoffing, & flouting vsed by their Pastor & D. Stud And when the Pastors father separated and shewed the causes thereof, then doth this poore Habel grone at the re­membrance thereof, and with a wofull oh he tells vs, how they became not onely hot and warme, but fierce, outragious, and passing the bounds of goodnesse, ciuilitie and nature.

If thus they whet the teeth of slander against their owne father and brethren, both in the flesh, and in the faith of the separation, what wonder if they bite and barke at others?

PART. 2.

COme we in the next place to see how the Ainsworthians or old Brownists do whet & sharpen their teeth against other of the Separatists. And here first of al, let vs behold how M. Ainsworth himselfe, with some other of the chiefe of his [Page 78] company haue manifested master Iohnsons Apostasie & back-sliding from their ancient Catholike and Brownistique faith, which in former times had been generally receiued and pro­fessed by the whole fraternity of all that sect: In the suit in law, which the Franciscans & the Ainsworthians haue now a long time had before the Iudges and ciuill Magistrates about the meeting-house; the Franciscans haue alleaged that they are the Church, and that therefore they ought to haue the meeting-house which was built for the Church, that M. Ains­worth & his company were schismatikes from them, & there­fore for their schisme could not be accounted a true Church, and consequently had no right vnto the synagogue or mee­ting-house: Againe on the other side, M. Ainsworth and his company haue pleaded that they were the Church, because they held the ancient faith vpon which their Church was first founded, from which M. Iohnson and his company had fallen away into Apostasie, and therefore could not be the Church, nor haue any right vnto the meeting-house: M. Ainsworth and his people for the manifestation of M. Iohnsons Apostasie, haue giuen foorth a writing to shew the particular points wherein he hath reuolted: The occasion was this. During the time of their suite, there were certaine men deputed and ap­pointed by the Magistrates to heare and examine the cause as arbiters, and if it had been possible to haue agreed them; vnto these arbiters did master Ainsworths side giue in this writing, wherein it is specified from how many articles of their faith master Iohnson and his company haue Apostated, and how they haue forsaken both their profession made in their Apologie, and their confession in their authentique Creed.

Thus haue they manifested, how M. Iohnson hath forsaken the Faith, and cast away his old Creede in nine speciall Arti­cles, which they haue here numbred out: yea, and besides that haue also added, in the end thereof, three other articles against him and his companie, wherein they are manifested as enemies vnto peace, whereunto they were so deafe to hear­ken; and not onely that, but also are shewed to bee truce-breakers, violaters of their promise, and falsifiers of their word, by reuersing the way of peace that was once conclu­ded, and for not standing vnto the agreement which them­selues had made. And thus by this writing, and by the twelue articles thereof, nine concerning faith, and three concerning peace and truth, the Franciscanes are shewed to be without faith, without peace, and without truth. And thus hath Master Ainsworth set twelue sharpe teeth vpon the Franciscans, and thereby made twelue wounds in the bodie of their honestie and faith, vntill with some probable answere they can salue the same.

But alas how shall M. Iohnson with any sound answer salue his faith and his honestie, by writing against M. Ainsworth, that doth now become his accuser? Seeing by M. Iohnsons owne testimonie and confession M. Ainsworth Fran. Iohnsons enquirie of Tho. Wh. p. 43. for his lear­ning, wisdome, and godlinesse as also for his faithfull teaching of the Church, and vpright walking toward all, is so well knowne and approued, as neither he not we need regard any aduersaries [Page 82] malice and opposition against him. These things being so, what need M. Ainsworth to regard the malice and opposition of M. Iohnson now his aduersarie, vnlesse M. Iohnsons malice be a­boue the malice of other men, and vnlesse his opposition be more terrible than the opposition of all aduersaries besides? If M. Ainsworths learning be so well knowne and approued, then what needes he to regard M. Iohnsons sophistrie? If his wise­dome be so well knowne and approued, what needes he to re­gard the policies and subtleties of Fran. Iohnson and Dan. Studley? If his godlinesse and vpright walking towards all be so well knowne and approued, then what great cause hath euerie man to regard the witnesse of M. Ainsworth, which he brin­geth against M. Iohnson? And what cause hath M. Iohnson to be ashamed of his wayes, that is accused of Apostasie, Con­tention, Error, Falsehood, Lying, and Promise-breaking, and all this by M. Ainsworth, whom himselfe doth acknowledge to be so godly and vpright a walker towards all? It is there­fore as like that M. Ainsworth hath now walkt as vprightly towards Francis Iohnson as he did before towards Th. Wh.

Againe, the Ainsworthians scoffing at M. Iohnson now that they haue reiected him, they say, That M. Ainsworth hath long time wrought iourney-worke vnder M. Iohnson, but that now he sets vp The two shops of Error and Schisme.shop for himselfe, and this vnder M. Iohnsons nose, their meeting-house being the next house but one vnto M. Iohnsons shop or meeting-house. Nay, further they say, that M. Ainsworth seekes to take away M. Iohnsons shop from ouer his head, while by their suit in law they contend for the meeting-house it selfe, hoping that M. Ainsworth and his companie shall get the same.

Further, to come vnto more hainous matters, it is witnes­sed by some of M. Ainsworths companie, That there is proba­ble murder and approued whoredomes maintained or suffered in M. Iohnsons Church. This hath bin testified by Iohn Trappes. M. Iohnson and his Elders also do know, that this is auouched against them: for this hath Iohn Trap witnessed vnto their messengers, solemnely Septemb. 8. 1611.sent from their Church, to enquire a­bout [Page 83] this matter, and hath also offered to proue this before the magistrates, yea and hath prouoked them much to bring the matter into question. It is witnessed also vnto the mes­sengers of their Church, That M. de Cluse hearing it spo­ken, that there was approued murder maintained in M. Iohn­sons Church, should also graunt vnto the same, saying, Yea, it is too true, or it is too true indeed, the more is the pitie, or the more sorrie he was, to like effect, &c. Are not the teeth of the Ains­worthians like kniues vnto the Franciscans? Doe they not cut and bite deepe in such speeches and testimonies which they giue touching the euils that are tolerated or maintained a­mong them? Are they fit men to separate from all other true Churches for corruptions, while the charge of such abhomi­nation is tolerated among themselues?

To conclude this point, let it be considered, that euen then when M. Iohnson and M. Ainsworths companie were yet one, long before any shew of this great diuision that is now a­mongst them, it came to passe, that Thomas Cocky and Iacob Iohnson, two men of note amongst them, both of them Pro­phets, falling into variance one with another, one of them brings in before the Church a List of fifteene lyes wherewith he charged the other; the other againe to requite his paines brings in at the next turne against him a List of sixteene lyes; betwixt them both they make vp the summe of 31 lyes: Is it not a token, that the father of that Companie is the father of lyes, when as the children thereof are so fruitfull in lyes? Is it probable that the truth of God should be tied and treasu­red vp onely among these lying companions, whiles all the true Churches in the world beside are not able to compre­hend the mysterie of that Separation, which they say is re­uealed vnto them? What wonder is it, that these men should raise many lies and slanders against others, when as thus they heaped them vpon themselues mutually? And what wonder if they bite one another now that they are rent in two, see­ing when they were vndiuided they spared not one ano­ther?

PART. 3.

M. Robinson writing in defence of the popular gouern­ment against M. Bernard, doth therein vtter many hard speeches against the oppugners thereof. Now M. Iohnson being an oppugner thereof, as well as M. Bernard, and vsing the same reasons that M. Bernard doth to that purpose, it followes necessarily, that those speeches and rebukes which M. Robinson layes vpon M. Bernard, do through his side pierce and wound M. Iohnson also, when he holds the same opinion and vseth the same arguments with M. Bernard. And this is the rather to be obserued, because M. Ainsworths people ex­cusing M. Ainsworth for his not answering of M. Iohnsons Expos. of Mat. 18.booke, they alledge and plead, that M. Robinson hath answe­red him, & confuted his reasons in the confutation of M Ber­nard; and therefore the rebukes which in that point and in that behalfe are layed vpon M. Bernard, are many of them also to be as well applyed vnto M. Iohnson: For example

M. Robinson Answer to M Bernard, p. 124. writing, That their practise is answerable to their profession, and shewing their profession what it is, from the confession of their faith, Artic. 24. inferreth from thence, that they cannot be charged with bastardly runagates. But on the contrarie side, M. Ainsworth (as is noted in the former Section) declaring that M. Iohnson is fallen from their faith euen in that very article, it followeth hereupon from M. Ro­binsons speech, that M. Iohnson and his companie forsaking that profession of faith, are therefore to be deemed bastardly runagates.

M. Robinson affirming, That they are Pag. 152. miserable guides, which teach, that the power of the keyes is giuen to the chiefe officers, shewing also, that it is Pag. 153. erronious and deroga­torie to the nature of the Gospell and free donation of Christ thus to impropriate and ingrosse the keyes; He doth hereby declare M. Iohnson and M. Clyfton to be miserable Guides: yea, that they are sacrilegious ingrossers of the keyes, contrarie [Page 85] to the nature of the Gospel and free donation of Christ, be­cause they teach that doctrine aswell as master Barnard.

Answer to M. Bernard, p. 160.M. Robinson reproouing the enuious dealing of them that oppugne popularitie, for arrogating al the power of the peo­ple into their hands, doth declare this by alleadging of 1. Ki. 22.24. and hereby it followes vpon his reproofe, that master Iohnson and maister Clifton, holding the point with maister Bernard, are also like the arrogant and prowd Zidkiah, that smote the Lords Prophet on the cheeke. Thus is maister Iohnson noted as a cruell persecutor, making himselfe to be Pag. 162. thought all eie from top to bottome, and making his people in the meane time to be a blinde beetle, euen stone-blinde, that cannot see one steppe before them.

M. Robinson reproouing maister Bernard, for alleadging the charge of Princes and Ecclesiasticall Gouernours toge­ther, doth blame him herein, as though hee lai [...] a Pag. 164. Corner stone of Babylon hereby: now maister Iohnson yoaking these Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall officers together in this Exposit of Mat. 8. Reu. 3.allegation also doth hereby incurre the same rebuke, and is heereup­on in his account, a builder of Babylon, as well as maister Bernard.

M. Robinson imputeth vnto maister Bernard, the occasion of a strange and new kinde of Answer to M Bernard, p. 234 Schisme, for teaching, that the power of Excommunication is in the Officers; for here­by (saith he) All the communion passeth betwixt the parties admonishing and admonished, excommunicating and excom­municated, whereof the body of the Church is neither, but a very cipher and a hang-by: Now maister Iohnson practising and teaching that which maister Robinson here reprooueth, by his Sentence is become guiltie of Schisme, making his Church to be a cypher and a hang-by.

M. Robinson speaking of the power of binding and loo­sing, saith; Pag. 244. These knots are to bee tyed and loosed onely by the Chauncellours or Officialls fingers, this power haue they enclo­sed with hedge and ditch &c. This contumely may as iustly be returned vpō master Iohnsons head with master Robinsons [Page 86] wordes, that those knots are to be tyed and loosed onely by master Iohnson and his officials fingers, especially the filthie fingers of Dan. Studley his Quondam. chiefe Chancelor, and that hee hath captiued his Church, and seized the substance and ker­nell, as it were, into their hands, leauing the poore people onely the shell and shadow to feede vpon.

Further, master Bernard writing about ordination and succession of the Ministerie, is tasked by master Robinson as being Answere to Ber. pag. 421. either a marked seruant of the Pope, or one that cared not what he wrote for some present seeming aduantage. Now master Iohnson arguing in like matter about ordination and succession of the Ministerie, and fetching the same from Rome, the reproach doth fall as strangely vpon master Iohn­sons pate. Master Robinson writing about the Temples wher­in we worship Saints, that they are as Page 443. execrable things to be auoided, and yet further saith, that they are the least Page 4 [...]5. diffe­rence betwixt him and master Ber. The matter therefore of popular gouernment and the peoples power, is acknowled­ged to be a matter of greater waight, and therin master Iohn­son erring, falles into a sinne more then execrable or ac­cursed.

To omit many the like speeches, by this it doth euidently appeare how master Robinsons teeth are like kniues, and his iawes like swords to eate vp master Iohnsons companie, while he thus bites them by his doctrine, while hee makes master Iohnson and his elders to be bastardly runnagates; miserable guides; engrossers of the keyes; arrogant Zidkiahs, laying the corner stone of Babylon; Lucians or skoffing Atheists; Schis­matikes, making their Church a Cypher and a hang-by; wan­ting an honest heart; like Chancellors and Officials captiuing of the Church; either marked seruants of the Pope; or such as care not what they say for some present seeming aduantage; v­sing a power more then execrable or accursed.

Thus hauing shewed what he writeth against master Iohn­son, let vs see in a word what hee witnesseth against master Ainsworths companie. When some of master Ainsworths [Page 87] companie wrote vnto master Robinson, desiring him to come and helpe the Lord against the mightie (against master Iohn­son, whom they had accounted as the strongest Giant of the Separation) master Robinson at last came vnto them to dis­pute with master Iohnson about the change of his gouern­ment: and being come and entred within the listes of that disputation, he found master Ainsworths faction so disorderly and clamorous, that he often desired them to be still and si­lent, and reproued their vnseemely and vnreasonable beha­uior: but at length when he saw the tumult encrease, (loo­king vpon them round about, as a man amazed and agast, with fierce and outragious carriage) he did then openly testi­fie among them, That he had rather walke in peace with fiue godly persons, than to liue with fiue hundred or fiue thousand such vnquiet persons as these were. Hauing spoken to this ef­fect, master Iohnson told him further, That this was a small thing, and nothing in respect of their vnpeaceable and disor­dered carriage at some other times. And these things being so, alas how euill doe they prouide for their owne peace and comfort, which ioyne themselues vnto such a contentious and tumultuous band of Schismatikes?

As for master Smith and his disciples, they doe at once as it were with open mouth swallow vp all the Separation be­sides, by Charact of Beast. Epistle protesting against their false constitution, false wor­ship, false Ministerie, and false Gouernment. For howsoeuer master Robinson did heretofore seeme to agree with master Smith in the reproofe of the triformed Presbiterie, as he cal­leth it, and hath had much question with his people about the same; howsoeuer master Robinson hath followed master Smith in his doctrine and practise about the separation in almes, and so hath one speciall kind of separation more than master Iohnson or master Ainsworth in their Companies doe practise, and therefore might seeme to haue a more holy treasurie, and a more pure sacrifice of almes, free from that rigour and pollution wherewith the treasurie of the Francis­canes and Ainsworthians appeares to be defiled: yet notwith­standing [Page 88] all this, while they retaine a false constitution, mai­ster Smith stil protesteth against them all without exception, Epistle to the Character. That there is no one true ordinance of the Lord among them: And how they haue on the other side laied him open, as a Schismatike, an Heretike, and an Apostata, their Bookes a­gainst him doe plenteously declare.

We might here proceed yet further to shew, what bitings there be among the other lesser factions and broken peeces of the separation, and among those that walke alone; but ha­uing alreadie led the Reader a rough way, and beeing our selues weary thereof, wee doe here rest our selues, and sit downe for the present, hoping that this which is alreadie done wil be sufficient to shew what bitter fruit groweth vp­on the trees of the separation; and withall, desiring the Lord to keepe his seruants from tasting of this forbidden fruit, which in our owne experience we haue felt so bitter, we here take our leaue, and heartily bid the Christian Reader farewell in the Lord.