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

As first, that Paul called the Elders of Ephesus, and conferred with them* 1.1 without the people, Act. 20. 27. which who denyes, but they which set vp a Lord Bishop to rule alone without advising with eyther* 1.2 the inferiour Ministers, or people.

But that, which he addes in the next place, hath almost as ma∣ny errours, as wordes in it, and that is, that the Elders sate in a Cō∣sistory, with Iames their Bishop at Ierusalem, without the people, and did decree a matter, without asking their voice. Act. 21. 18.

First you erre in calling it a Consistory, or juditiall Court, for the justification of your own: where it was onely an occasionall meeting for advise. 2. in making Iames a Bishop whom Christ had made an Apostle. The Elders were Bishops, Act. 20. 17. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. ••. 7. And so if you would haue held any proportion you should haue made Iames an Archbishop. 3. that you make him their Bishop, where Bishops, or Overseers, are set over the flock, not over the Ministers, Act. 20. 28. 4. And most ignorantly, where you will have Iames & the Elders to make a decree for Paul, as if the Elders had authority over the Apostles (for that is the drift of your argument) or one Apostle over an other: or as if Paul were subject to Consistorian decrees. It was onely a matter of advise, that passed amongst them, as all men may see.

An other observation Mr B. hath in this place, as idle as the rest: and that is, that the Elders are superiour vnto the people, bycause they are set before them, Act. 15. 22. 23. where if the bould and incō∣siderate man had but read the 4. verse of the same Chapt: he should have seen the people set before the Officers: the very same alte∣ration

appeares ver. 2. & 12. so if his argument was of force, two contraries might be true, which is a repugnancy in nature. Yet deny we not but the officers are above the Church, in respect of the word, and doctrine they minister, and teach: but we deny the order of Elders to be superiour to the order of saynts, since it is not an order of Maystership, but of service.

But I will from this place, Mr B. (if I be not much deceived) take a better argument to prove the cōtrary to that you say, name∣ly, that the Church is an order superiour vnto the officers. And the reason is, bycause the Churches have authority to send the officers, as their messengers, v. 2. 3. 22. 32. Now they that send are ever in that respect, superiour vnto them that are sent.

That which you adde in the last place, to wit, that the Apostles & Elders did acquaint the people with the matter, who consented, but had no authority to make the authority of the Apostles, & Elders nothing, is drawn out of the same cask with the former. In which speach, there is imperfectiō, cōtradictiō, & ignorance. Imperfection, wher you give the people no further liberty then to consent to the matter, being made acquainted with it. For in that it is sayd, ver: 12. that the multitude kept silence when they had heard Iames speak truly, & suffi∣ciently, and that they held their peace, v: 13. when they heard Paul and Barnabas speak, it shewes they had also liberty of speaking in the matter, had they seen cause. Contradictions you speak, in af∣firming the people were to consent to the Elders, & yet in deny∣ing they could praejudice their power, & authority. For howso∣ever this be true for the Apostles, which were infallibly, and imme∣diately directed by the H. Ghost in their determinations, vnto which all were bound absolutely to condiscend, as are all the saynts at the last day to the judgement to be passed by Christ vpon the reprobate, yet is it not so for the Elders ordinary, then, or now, which may erre, and be deceived. And so where there is liberty of consenting conditionally, and if men see cause, there is also li∣berty of dissenting, vpon the contrary occasion: and so this dis∣sent of the body must eyther hinder the action, or els it is a mere mockery. Ignorance it is, in the last place to make equall the au∣thority of the Apostles, and Elders in this decree. For the de∣cree

was merely Apostolicall (to speak properly) and framed by infallible direction of the Holy Ghost, (which the Elders in them∣selves considered had not) as appeareth, ver. 28. and was, and is, in the right end, and equitie of it, a part of the canonicall scrip∣tures, in penning whereof the Elders had no hand: and so is im∣posed vpon the Churches of the Gentiles every where, ver. 23. with whom the Elders of Ierusalem had nothing to do, but one∣ly the Apostles, which were generall men: so that neyther brethrē, nor Elders did more then consent to the decree it self, & that ne∣cessarily, as vnto a divine oracle.

These things thus ended, I return to the Arguments in Mr Ber. first book to prove by the Ch: to be meant the cheif Officers.

The second and third whereof being but needles boasts of his former doings, I passe over.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr B.
• * 1.2

  Answer.