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

That all not in theyr way are without, and they do apply against vs 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ephe. 2 12.

And since the way is one as Christ is one, and we assured, that our way is that way of Christ, we doubt not to affirme that all not* 1.1 in our way are without in the present respect; provided alwayes that we do iudge that other Churches may be and are in our way, and we in theirs, and both they and we in Christs, though there be betwixt them & vs sundry differences both in iudgment and prac∣tise. And that we doe fitly apply against you the scriptures above named, I do thus manifest.

The Apostle 1 Cor. 5. reproves the Church for tolerating a∣mongst them the incestuous person vncensured, charging them to vse the power of the Lord Iesus given vnto them, for that purpose, and that as vpon him for the present, so vpon other notorious of∣fenders at other times. Now least they should mistake his mea∣ning he shewes how far this his advertisement extends, viz: to such offenders as were in the Church and to all, and onely them. And this limitation of the power of Christ to the proper obiect, he sets downe in this 12. verse, affirmatively, to them that are within,

and negatively, to them that are without. From this place then I do thus reason.

They that are within are subiect to the power of excōmu∣nication by the Church gathered together in the name of Christ, they without not.

But you Mr B. and so of the rest, are not subiect to the judgement of the Church thus gathered together, but to the Archbishop of York, Who is not the Church of Workxsop.

Therefore you are not within but without in the Apostles meaning.

The second place we apply against you is, Ephe. 2. 12. whence I reason thus.

They that are aliants and straungers from the common wealth of Israel, are without.

But such are you, and your whole parrish.

Ergo.

The first Proposition is the Apostles words: for to be without Christ (as there he speakes) and to be a stranger from the cōmon wealth of Israel, is all one.

The second Proposition is thus confirmed.

The cōmon wealth of Israel was a religious policy consisting of a peculiar people, of whom every one was by the word of God se∣parated into the covenant of his mercy Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. 13. Neh. 10. 1. 28. 29.

But to affirme that every person in the Church of England, or in any parish Church is admitted by the Lord into the new cove∣nant or testament, is both against the expresse word of God, Heb. 8. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. and his owne conscience (I am perswaded) that affirmed it.

And thus so long as you keep your standing, you must be con∣tent to stand without in the meaning of the Apostle in the places forenamed, neither can you wrythe in your self, or corrupt these places to get in by them, though you give sundry attempts. as

1. These places are ment of such as never made so much as an outward profession of Christ at all:

What better are men for professing God in word when in deed* 1.2 they deny him?

They are never a whit the lesse but the more abhominable. Tit. 1. 16. And might not any Papist or other heretik make this ex∣ception? For they make a kind of profession of Christ Iesus. And when you Mr B. in your pulpit thunder the iudgments of God out of the Prophets and Apostles against Atheists, Papists, blasphe∣mers, proud and cruell persequuters, might not a man serve you as you do us, and tel you that the most of the threatnings you de∣nounce were directed against the Heathen which did not so much as make an outward profession of Christ.

Lastly the H. Ghost terming Antichristianisme Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, spiritually teacheth vs to apply against it spiritually what the Prophets have civily spoken against them.* 1.3

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answ.
• * 1.2

  Answ.
• * 1.3

  Mr B.