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

The first whereof is, that Christ could not be understood eyther then,* 1.1 or now, except he spake as the practise was then, or took some order afterward, and so you go about to prove vnto vs, that the chief governours onely had authoritie to excommunicate, both in the synagogues and in the Church of Corinth.

To this I answer sundry things. First it followes not, that* 1.2 Christ was not then, or cannot now be vnderstood, except he spake with some such reference as you note. The words are so plaine, the order so equall, the state of the Church vnder the new testament (which is not, as before, nationall, but a particular as∣sembly) so capable of such an ordinance, as that laying aside pre∣judice, and politick respects, there can be nothing more playne∣ly spoken or more easily vnderstood.

2. It doth no way prejudice the exposition we give, though the disciples for the present vnderstood it not: they vnderstood litle, no not touching the death and resurrection of Christ, or na∣ture of his kingdome when they were at the first taught them, till eyther by their own experience, or by the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost, or some other meanes, the thinges formerly taught them were brought to their remembrance. Mat. 16. 21. 22. & 20. 20. 21. Mark. 16. 14. Luk. 24. 20. 21. 22—25. 26. -44. And it is expressely affirmed, Act. 1. 3. that the Lord Iesus did the 40. dayes before his ascension instruct them in such things as concerned the king∣dome of God, which is the Church.

The next thing to be considered is your proofs from scripture, that the power of excommunication was in the chief governours. But the places proove no such thing. Ioh. 9. 22. and 12. 42. & 16. ••▪ do onely prove an agreement amongst the Iewes, that such as

confessed Christ should be dissynagogued: but that this authority was onely in the hands of the chief governours, cannot be thence collected. I know there was at Ierusalem a representative Church for the whole nation, of which we shall speak hereafter, but that there was such a Church representative in every synagogue, furni∣shed with such power can never be concluded frō these scriptures. They rather in deed prove the contrarie. It is sayd Ioh. 9. 22. that the Iewes had ordeyned, that such as confessed Christ, should be dissynagogued: which words do rather interest the people in the busines then otherwise. If you think, that because there is menti∣on made of † 1.3 the Pharisees, the officers onely are meant, you are de∣ceived. For Pharisaism amongst the Iewes was not an office, but a sect. There were no other lawfull officers ecclesiasticall amongst them, but “ 1.4 the Levites whom the Lord took from among the children of Israel in stead of the first borne for his service: but many of the Pharisees, were of other tribes. Phil. 3. 5.

Besides, I see no sufficient reason to perswade me, that this casting out of the synagogue was any ecclesiasticall censure, but rather a violent rejection or extrusion out of the place: as nothing was more cōmon then such tumultuous outrages in those dayes. And the very same word that Iohn vseth, ch. 9. ver. 35. Luke vseth ch. 4. 28. 29. for the violent extrusion of Christ himself by the Iewes, vpon the like occasion, both out of the synagogue, and citie. The same also doth Iohn himself vse, ch. 2. 15. speaking of Christs casting* 1.5 the mony chaungers out of the temple. And yet neyther the NAZARITES excommunicate CHRIST, nor CHRIST the mony-chaungers.

But if there were amongst the Iewes at that tyme any such di∣stinct ordinance of excommunication ecclesiasticall, it was a Iewish devise, (I am perswaded) and without ground of the scriptures: and that for these causes.

First every blasphemer, or worshipper of vnknowen Gods* 1.6 was by the law of Moses to dy the death without redemption, that so evill might be put from Israell, Exod. 22. 20. Lev. 24. 16. Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9—12. 13. 14. 15.

And so the Iewes reputing this blind man such a one, were to put him to death: but being deprived of this power by the Romayns, through the just judgement of God for their sinnes, they devised this other course of dissynagogueing, or excommunicating offen∣dours by them so deemed.* 1.7

Secondly the severall synagogues were not distinct Churches, but members of that one nationall Church, which was both repre∣sentatively, and originally at Ierusalem: neyther could any of them excommunicate out of the temple, which was a higher communi∣on then theirs: and so it is very probable that Christ found this blind man afterwards in the temple, Ioh. 9. 38. compared with 10. 22. into which (had he been ecclesiastically excommunicated) he might not haue entred: neyther hangs it together, that any reje∣cted in the communion of the synagogue, might be received in the communion of the temple.* 1.8

3. The Lord did chuse the whole nation of the Iewes to be his peculiar people, and took all and every one of them into covenant with himself, gave them the Land of Canaan for an inheritance, as a type of the kingdome of heaven, erected a policy over them, ci∣vil, & ecclesiasticall, in the judiciall & ceremonial law, called the old testamēt, making the same persons & all of them, though in divers respects the Church, & the cōmon wealth, whervpō the Church is also called the common wealth of Israel. Exod. 19. 5. 6. Lev. 20. 24. 26. Deut. 4. 6. 7. & 29. 2. 10. 11. 12. Ios. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rom. 9. 4 Ephe. 2. 12. Hence it followeth, that except a man might enjoy one type of the kingdom of heavē, as was the Land of Canaā, & not an other, as was the temple, or tabernacle, Heb. 9. 24. except he might be vnder one part of the old testament, or covenant of God, name∣ly the judicial law for the common wealth, and not vnder an other part of it, the ceremoniall law for the Church, it cannot be that any such ordinance as excommunication could be vsed lawfully in the Iewish Church.

Yet do I not deny but that the lepers & other persons legally vnclean were for a time debarred frō the cōmuniō of the Church, and from all the sacrifices, and services thereof, but this inhibition say I, was no way in the nature of an excommunication.

For first it was for ceremoniall vncleannes, issues, leprosy, and the like, which were not sinnes, but punishments of sinnes at the most.

2. It did not onely exclude men from the communion of the Church, but of the common wealth also, and the affaires thereof.

3. It did not agree in the end with excommunication. The end of excommunication is the repentance of the party excōmunica∣ted, 1 Cor. 5. 5. but the person legally vncleane, whether he repen∣ted, or no, was to bear his shame till the date of his time were out, yea to his dying day, if his disease continued so long. Lev. 12. & 13. & 14. Num. 5. 2. 3. 4. & 12. 10. 14. 2 Chron. 26. 19. 20. 21. A type I confesse it was of excommunication, as legall pollution was of morall sin: whence I also conclude that the type, and thing typed outwardly could not both stand together.

But here it vvilbe demaunded of me, did not the Lord require in the Iewish Church true, morall, and spirituall holynes also? God forbid I should run vpon that desperate rock of Anabaptistry. The* 1.9 Lord was holy then as now, and so would have his people be then holy, as now. Yea so jealous was the Lord over his people that he took order then as well as now, that no sin should be suffered vnrefor∣med, no obstinate sinner vncut off. Some sinnes were of that na∣ture, as he that committed them was by the law to dy the death without pardon, or partialitie, & so to be cut off from the Lords people. Lev. 20. And when other sinnes not of that nature were committed, whether of ignorance, or otherwise, the party offen∣ding was to be told, and admonished of his offence, and so to ma∣nifest his repentance by the confefs••on of his sinne, and professiō of his faith in the mediatour, by offering his appointed sacrifice, and so his sinne was forgiven him. Lev. 4. 13. 14. 15.—20. 21 23—26. 27. 28. 35. & 5. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6.—10. & 19. 17. Num. 5. 6. 7. But now if there were with the least sinne joyned obstinacy, or presumption, the party so sinning was to be cut off from his people, Num. 15. 30. 31. 32. 34. 36. Deut. 17. 12. and for this cause the Iewes were so oft admonished to * 1.10 destroy the workers of wickednes, that there should be no wickednes amongst them, that they should take away evil from Israel, and from forth of the middest of them. And vpon this ground doth

David as the cheif Magistrate, whom this busines cheifly concer∣ned, vow his service vnto God in this kind, and that he would even * 1.11 betimes destroy all the wicked of the land, that he might cut off the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord: though he afterwards fay∣led in the execution of this dutie. And to the very same end did “ 1.12 Asa the King with all the people enter a covenant of oath, to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their hart, and with all their soule: and that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slaine, whether be were small or great, man or woman.

To end this point, vpon which I have insisted something the longer for sundry purposes in their place to be manifested: as the Lord vsually conveyed spirituall both blessings, and curses vn∣to the Iewes vnder those which were bodily, so here was the spiri∣tuall judgement of excommunication comprehended vnder this bodily judgement of death, by which the party delinquent was wholy cut off visibly from the Lords covenant, and people.

That which you adde of Cloes cōplaint made to the cheif governour the Apostle, is true, but misapplyed. You make an erroneous collection from it out of your owne lamentable experience. Bycause your Church of Worxsop can reforme no abuse within it self, but must complain to your Lords grace of York▪ or his substitute, therfore you imagine the Church of Corinth to have been in the same bō∣dage, wherein you are: and Cloe to have complayned to Pauls court. But it is playn Mr B. to them that do not shut their eyes, and harden their hearts against the truth: that the Church of Corinth was planted in the liberty of the gospell, and had this power of Christ to reform abuses, and to excommunicate offen∣ders, without sending to Paul from one part of the world to an other, and that the Corinthians Ch. 5. are reproved for fayling in this duty. And had Mr B. but taken this course in his writing, that two of his leaves had hung together, he might have spared this objection, considering what he writ, pag. 92. that the same persons have the power to preach, administer the sacraments, and ex∣communicate: for that he meanes by government. Now he cannot be ignorant, that both the power, and practise of preaching, & administring the sacraments were in the Church of Corinth in

Pauls absence. 1 Cor. 11. 20. & 14. 1. &c. And so by your own graunt the Church of Corinth had power to excommunicate though Paul were absent. Wherevpon I also infer it was their sinne not to vse it.

Now for the practise of Cloes family, wee know Paul was an Apostle, and generall Officer, and so intitled to the affaires in all the Churches in the world: wherevpon Cloe complayned vn∣to him of such abuses in the Church as were both of publick na∣ture, and which the Church vvould not reform: otherwise it had been both slaunder, and solly to have complayned. And what corne doth this winde shake? Do wee make it vnlawfull for any member to informe the officers of publique enormities in the Church, that they according to their places might see reforma∣tion of them? Yea if the Pastor, or other principall Officer of the Church were absent necessarily, we doubt not but it were the duety of any brother, or brethren in the like case, to entreat their help for the direction, reproofe, and reformation of the Church, for any publick enormities there done, or suffered: who might also judge, and condemne the same themselves, and for their parts, exhorting, and directing the whole Church in their publique meeting to do the like as Paul did.

Your three next Arguments to prove that tell the Church, is tell the Officers, are idle descants vpon the formes, and phra∣ses of speach scraped together to fill your book with.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr. B.
• * 1.2

  Answ.
• † 1.3

  vers. 13. 15. 16. & Ch. 12. 42.
• “ 1.4

  Lev. 8. Num. 3. 12. 13. & 8. 14. 16. 17.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.6

  I.
• * 1.7

  II.
• * 1.8

  III.
• * 1.9

  Levit. 11. 44. 1 Pet. 1. 15. 16.
• * 1.10

  Lev. 20. 14. Deut. 17. 12. & 19. 19.
• * 1.11

  Psal. 101. ••.
• “ 1.12

  1 Chron. 15. 12. 13. 14. 15.