In his words and yours, I find both a Miscollection, and a Wrong Charge.

For the former: the want of noting one poor distinction, breeds all this confusion of doctrine, and separation of men. For there is one case of a New Church to be called from Heathenism, to Christianity; another, of a Former Church to be reformed from errors, to more sincere Christianity.

In the first of these, is required indeed a solemn initiation by baptism; and, before that, a voluntary and particular confession of faith; and, therefore, a clear separation and exception of the Christian, from the Infidel.

In the latter, neither is new baptism lawful (though some of you belike of old were in hand with a rebaptization; which, not then speeding, succeedeth now to your shame) nor a new voluntary and particular confession of faith besides that in baptism, though very commendable, will ever be proved simply necessary to the being of a Church; so long as the erring parties do actually renounce their doctrines, and in open profession embrace the truth; and, as generally in the public confession, so particularly upon good occasion give just testimonies of their repentance.

This is our case. We did not make a new Church, but mended an Old. Your Clifton is driven to this old, by necessity of argument P: otherwise he sees there is no avoiding of Anabaptism.

"Mended," saith your Doctor, "and yet admitted the misceline rabble of the profane ?-"

Say now, that such Separation were not made: let some few be holy, and the more part profane: shall the lewdness of some disannul God's covenant with others? This is your mercy: God's is more; who still held Israel for his, when but few held his pure service. Let that Divine Psalmist teach you how full the tents of Israel were of mutinous rebels in the desert; yet the pillar, by day and night, forsook them not: and Moses was so far from rejecting them, that he would not endure God should reject them to his own advantage. Look into the black censures and bitter complaints of all the Prophets, and wonder that they separated not. Look into the encreased mass of corruptions in that declined Church, whereof the blessed eyes of our Saviour were witnesses, and marvel at his silent and sociable incuriousness: yea, his charge of not separating'. Ye know not of what spirit you are.

Inconstance of Brown, p. 110. Enquiry into M. White, confessed by Fr. Johnson, p. 63.

P Passage betwixt Clifton and Smith: "And concerning the constitution of the Churches, &c. But the constituting of Churches, now after the defection of Antichrist, may more properly be called a repairing, than a constituting, &c." p. 60. r Matt. xxiii.

VOL. X.

Ps. cvi.

Now you fly to constitution; as if notorious evils were more tolerable in the continuance, than in the collection of assemblies. Sardis had but a few names, that had not defiled their garments: God praises these; bids them not, separate from the rest. Thyatira suffers a false prophetess: the rest, that have not this learning, yet are bidden but to hold their own; not to separate from the Angel, which hath not separated Jezebel from the Church.

SECT. 6.

What Separation the Church of England hath made. YOUR Charge is no less injurious; That the Church of England hath made no Separation.

Concerning which you have learned of your martyr and overseers" so to speak, as if, before her late disclamation of Popery in Queen Elizabeth's time, she had not been. Her Monuments could have taught you better, and have led you to her ancient pedigree not much below the Apostolic days; and, in many descents, have shewed you not a few worthy witnesses and patrons of truth: all which, with their holy and constant offspring, it might have pleased you to have separated from this imputation of not separating.

Will you know, therefore, how the Church of England hath separated? In her first conversion, she separated herself from Pagans in her continuance, she separated herself from gross Heretics, and sealed her separation with blood: in her reformation, she separated herself from wilful Papists, by her public profession of truth and proclaimed hatred of error: and she daily doth separate the notoriously evil, by suspensions, by excommunications; though not so many as yours: besides the particular separations of many from the acknowledged corruptions, in judgment, profession, practice. All these will be avowed, in spite of all contradiction. With what forehead then can you say, the whole Church of England hath not at all separated?

After all your shifts and idle tales of constitution, you have separated from this Church against the Lord; not, with the Lord, from it. If there be Christ with us, if the Spirit of God in us, if Assemblies, if Calling by the Word; whatsoever is, or is not else in the Constitution, there is whatsoever is required to the essence of a Church. No corruption, either in

• Rev. iii. 4.

Rev. ii. 24, 25.

"Bar. pp. 22 and 55. Fr. Johnson against M. H.

x Act. et Mon. passim.

Troubles and Excom. p. 191. M. Spr. p. 1.

Z Fr. Jun. lib. de Eccles.

gathering or continuance, can destroy the truth of being, but the grace of being well. If Christ have taken away his Word and Spirit, you have justly subduced: else, you have gone from him in us.

And, when you have all done, the Separatist's idol, Visible Constitution, will prove but an appendance of an external form, no part of the essence of a True Church; and, therefore, your Separation no less vain than the ground, than the authors.

Lastly, if our bounty should, which it cannot, grant, that our collection was at first deeply faulty, cannot the Ratihabition, as the Lawyers speak, be drawn back? may not an after-allowance rectify and confirm it? In contracts (your own similitude) a following consent justifies an act done before consent and why not in the contract betwixt God and his Visible Church? Lo, he hath confirmed it by his gracious benedictions; and, as much as may be in silence, given us abundant proofs of his acceptation. That after-act, which makes your baptism lawful, why can it not make our Church?

SECT. 7.

Constitution of a Church.

BUT, forasmuch as Constitution is the very state of Brownism, let us, I beseech you, enquire a little into the complexion of your Constitution. Whether physic, or law, or architecture have lent you it; sure I am, it is, in this use, Apocryphal. Never man used it thus scrupulously, till your times. Though, what need you the help of Fathers or Schools? New words must express new paradoxes. It is no treason, to coin terms.

What, then, is Constitution? Your Doctor can best tell us. "As the Constitution of a commonwealth or of a city, is a gathering or uniting of people together into a civil polity: so," saith hed, "the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Israel, and of the City of God, the New Jerusalem, is a gathering and uniting of people into a divine polity. The form of which polity, is Order: which order is requisite in all actions and administrations of the Church, as the Apostle sheweth; and specially in the Constitution thereof: so that, next unto faith in God, it is to be esteemed most necessary for all holy societies. Hence Paul rejoiced in the Colossians' Order and Faith; Col. ii. 5. To this Constitution, therefore, belong a people, as the matter; secondly, a calling, or gathering together, as the form,

a Ratihabitio retrahi, &c.

b

Subsequens consensus Jacobi in Leam fecit eos conjuges. d. 29. q. 1. S. Sed objicitur.

Barrow against Gyff.

4 H. Ainsworth. Counterp. p. 170.

whereof the Church consisteth.

Church of England is false in both."

The Constitution of the

Why so? Have we not a people? Are not those people called together? To prevent this, you say our Constitution is false, not none. Why false? Because those people have neither Faith nor Order.

Faith, the First Part of Constitution.

FOR Faith, first. Who are you, that dare thus boldly break into the closets of God, the hearts of men; and condemn them to want that, which cannot be seen by any but divine eyes? How dare you intrude thus into the Throne of your Maker?

Consider, and confer seriously. What Faith is it, that is thus necessarily required to each member in this Constitution? Your own Doctor shall define it: "Faith, required to the receiving in of members, is the knowledge of the doctrine of salvation by Christ; 1 Cor. xii. 9. Gal. iii. 2."

Now I beseech you, in the fear of God, lay by awhile all unchristian prejudice; and peremptory verdicts of those souls, which cost Christ as much blood as your own: and tell me ingenuously, whether you dare say, that, not only your Christian brethren with whom you lately conversed, but even your forefathers which lived under Queen Elizabeth's first confused Reformation, knew not the doctrine of salvation by Christ.

If you say they did not, your rash judgment shall be punished fearfully, by him, whose office you usurp. As you look to answer before him, that would not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoaking flax, presume not thus, above men and angels.

If they did, then had they sufficient claim both to true Constitution and Church.

"But this faith must be testified by obedience:”—So it was. If you think not so, yours is not testified by love. Both were weak: both were true. Weakness, in any grace or work, takes not away truth. Their sins of ignorance could no more disannul God's covenant with them, than multiplicity of wives with the Patriarchs.

Tertul. de Præscript. Tu, ut homo extrinsecus unumquemque nosti, putas quod vides, vides autem quousque oculos habes: sed oculi Domini sunt alti: "homo in faciem, Deus in præcordia, contemplatur.

Principles and Inferences concerning the Visible Church. Anno 1607.

p. 13.

SECT. 8.

Order, the Second Part of Constitution, how far requisite, and whether hindered by Constraint.

WHAT wanted they, then? Nothing but Order: and not all Order; but yours.

Order, a thing requisite and excellent; but let the world judge whether essential.

Consider now, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ Jesus, whether this be a matter for which heaven and earth should be mixed: whether, for want of your Order, all the world must be put out of all order, and the Church out of life and being.

Nothing, say we, can be more disorderly, than the confusion of your Democracy; or popular state, if not Anarchy: where all, in a sort, ordain and excommunicate. We condemn you not, for no true members of the Church. What can be more orderless, by your own confessions ", than the Trineune Church at Amsterdam? which yet you grant but faulty. If there be disproportion and dislocation of some parts, is it no true human body? Will you rise from the feast, unless the dishes be set on in your own fashion? Is it no city, if there be mudwalls half broken, low cottages unequally built, no state-house? But your order hath more essence than you can express; and is the same, which politicians, in their trade, call Táέiv Tîs Tóλews, an incorporating into one common civil body, by a voluntary union, and that under a lawful government". Church wants both: wherein there is both constraint, and false office :

Our

Take your own resemblance, and your own asking. Say, that some tyrant, as Basilius of Russia, shall forcibly compel a certain number of subjects into Moscow; and shall hold them in, by an awful garrison, forcing them to new laws and magistrates, perhaps hard and bloody. They yield; and, making the best of all, live together in a cheerful communion, with due commerce, loving conversation, submissive execution of the enjoined laws. In such case, whether is Moscow a true city, or not?

Since your Doctor cites Aristotle, let it not irk him to learn of that philosopher, who can teach him', that, when Clisthenes had driven out the tyrants from Athens, and set up a new government, and received many strangers and bondmen into the

D. Allis. against the Descript.-Confess. of the Brownists.-Brown, State of True Christians.-Enquiry into M. White. Arist. Pol. 3. c. 1.

Ans. ibid. Arist. Pol. 3. cap. 1.