A iustification of separation from the Church of England Against Mr Richard Bernard his invective, intituled; The separatists schisme. By Iohn Robinson.

In your fourth argument there is litle but the answer (of which* 1.1 I formerly spake) vnto the second; to wit that antichristianism begun

in Christianity, which is true, as sowernes begins in wine, til by degrees* 1.2 it turn it into vineger: and as other haeresies begun in the Eastern Churches, which have notwithstanding long since eaten out the hearts of them, that they cannot, nor could not of long tyme be called the true Churches of Christ. True also is it, which you say that antichristianism doth not wholy disanul christianity: for if it did, it were not possible it should deceive so effectually as it doth. How should the Divil be beleeved in so many lyes, if he should not in some things speak the truth? But where you further adde, that Po∣perie is nothing, but idolatrous, and he••itic••l corruptions vpon the pro∣fession of Christian fayth, covering it with the same, as Iobs body was with sores, and in the more large application of that Simile, pag. 245. do affirm that as he, though covered over with botches, and sores, so a•• he could scarce be known by his freinds, was Iob stil vnder the sores, and the very same essentially, that he was before, so ••s the Church, and christiani∣ty in Popery, ••hough covered with the antichristian corruptions, which Sa∣than hath brought over them, in so saying, you are like your selfe, one∣ly constant in inconstancy, and errour. And tell me I pray you Mr B. is the Popes vniversal supremacy, and headship over all Churches, by which also he claymeth power of both the swords, onely a s••ab vpon the skin of the true ministery, which Christ hath left in the Church, without preiudicing the essence or nature of it? Is the sacrifice of the masse onely, a soar brought vpon the Lords supper, vnder which notwithstāding it lyes the very same in nature, and substance, which was by Christ ordeyned? Is prayer vnto saynts onely a corruption come vpon true prayer, but no more against the life of it, then Iobs vlcers were against his life, or doth it not destroy the very soule, and life of prayer? Is adoration of saynts, service in an vnknown tongue, with all other the abhominations in the masse-book, but as a scurf come over that true worship of God wherwith he wilbe worshipped? Iohn. 4. 23. 24. vnder which the very same true worship lyeth (as Iob did vnder his soares) which God hath cōmaunded, & that without any more daunger of losse of life, then Iob was in by his outsyde skabs? Lastly, is the opini∣on of iustification by works, onely a botch, and byle vpon true fayth, but not against the nature of it▪ nor destroying the essence

of it? Your errour is sufficiently convinced in the recital and o∣pening of it, in these particulars: your inconstancy, and contradi∣ction is most notorious in the last of them, compared with that you wryte, pag. 113. of your former book; namely, that the ioyning of works in the cause of salvation, which the Papists do, is against the true nature of fayth in the son of God, and destroyeth it.* 1.3

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr. B.
• * 1.2

  Answ.
• * 1.3

  V.