Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. But Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this Text says That these Presbyters here spoken of who ordain'd Timothy were Apostles That Timothy was ordain'd by St. Paul is most evident for St. Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy ch 1. v. 6. says I put thee in mind that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands And the Apostles might then have been likely enough call'd Presbyters for that during the Apostles time Bishops and Presbyters were the same and sometimes us'd the one for the other as appears plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 4. 14. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. In the former Verse St. Paul bids Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in him by laying on the hands of the Presbyters And in the latter he bids him Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the laying on of my hands For while the Apostles liv'd they manag'd the Affairs of Government in the Church themselves and therefore there were few or no Bishops in their days but as they withdrew they committed the Care and Government of Churches to such Persons as they appointed thereto of which we have an uncontroulable Evidence in Timothy and Titus So that although the Apostles left no Successors in Eodem gradu as to those things that were extraordinary in them as the Infallibility of their Doctrine and the writing New Gospels the Extent of their Power c. yet to other parts of their Apostolick Office they had Successors as in Teaching and Governing and such like things that were not extraordinary Which Power of Governing Ordaining c. being given to such particular Presbyters as the Apostles thought fit for it was properly the Episcopal Power And thus these who were but Presbyters in the Apostles days by the accession of this governing and ordaining Power became Bishops after their Decease or Departure And thus will all those seeming Differences between the words Presbyter and Bishop spoken of in Antiquity be reconcil'd And herewith agrees the Opinion of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 270. and many others See King Charles I. his Debates about Episcopacy more fully concerning this Matter But 't is plain that since the Apostles days Presbyters were not Bishops but a distinct Order from them And this is agreed by most Ancient and Modern Writers See among others Ignatius his Epistle ad Trall where he says That without Bishops Priests and Deacons it cannot be call'd a Church And Aerius who declar'd that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter was represented by Epiphanius as a Prodigy and his opinion Madness See Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3. So Ischyrus pretended to be a Presbyter because Coluthus had ordain'd him but Athanasius represents it as a Monster that one shou'd esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordain'd by one who died himself a Presbyter See Dr. Maur. Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 451. And in the Primitive Church if a Bishop himself did Ordain any one against the Canons and Establish'd Discipline of the Church they did not stick at declaring such Ordination void and in some Cases to re-ordain See Can. Nicen. 9 10. 16. 19. and Can. Antioch 73. 10 c. What Sentence shall we think then they wou'd have pronounc'd against our Presbyterian Ordination as practis'd here in England contrary both to the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land too But besides all this the Plea which our Dissenters make for Separation upon this account that the Presbyters are totally depriv'd of their Power of Ordaining is false For by the Canons of the Church of England Four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop in giving Orders and after Examination to joyn in laying on of hands on the Person ordain'd See Can. 31. and 35. But another Objection which they make to the Church of England for want of Discipline is for that the Power of Excommunicating Notorious Offenders is taken away from the Parochial Minister and lodg'd only in the Bishop But sure they who make this Objection never read the 26th Canon which is one of them acknowledg'd to be the Authentick Church Canons For that Canon says expresly That no Minister shall admit any of his Flock to the Lâ—â—d's Supper who is known to be guilty 〈…〉 Scandalous Sin until he hath openl◠〈◊〉 that he has truly repented And 〈◊〉 â—ase the Offender continue obstinate he must give an account to the Ordnary within 14 Days who is then to proceed to greater Excommunication for the other is call'd a Penitential Excommunication So then it seems the Pastors are not totally depriv'd of the Power of censuring for Scandalous offences nay they have a greater and more absolute Power than is allow'd them in many other Reform'd Churches for indeed the exercise of Discipline is a Work of so much Prudence and Difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought fit to trust it in the Hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin himself says to do so is contrary to the Apostolick Practice See Calv. Ep. 136. And Beza speaking of the Discipline of Geneva in his Ep. 20. says The Parochial Ministers proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certifie the Presbytery of the City who sit at certain times to hear all Censures relating to Discipline But allowing a Church wants true Discipline does it therefore lose its Being or justifie Separatio◠〈…〉 sure if so there were few 〈◊〉 Churches to be found in the 〈◊〉 many of them having no Discipâ—â—â—â— aâ— all among them for many years nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred in some parts of this Kingdom for ten or a dozen years together But now we come to the 4th Objection against the Constitution of our Church which is That the People are depriv'd of their right of choosing their own Ministers Pray let me ask them how this Original and inherent Right as Mr. Baxter calls it of choosing their own Ministers came to be lodg'd in the People Was there not a Church to be form'd in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Authority for that end Where was the Church Power then lodg'd Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And were not then the Pastors invested with a Power superior to that of the People How came they then to lose it â—or how came the People to pretend an original Right thereto Besides How cou'd the People make choice of Men for their fitness and abilities when at that time their abilities depen◠〈…〉 on the Apostles laying on of 〈◊〉 â—ands for then the Holy Ghost 〈…〉 them It seems then that this 〈◊〉 and inherent Right was not in the People in the Apostles days nor in the first Ages of the Church for if it had St.
generality of the People are so apt to be led by their Spiritual Guides and take their Notions of Loyalty and Obedience from them 't is strange to imagine that Ministers shall be allow'd to Preach up Sedition Heresy or what Doctrine they please and it shall not be in the Power of the Magistrate to silence them But say our Dissenters we are call'd to the Office of the Ministry by God Almighty and have received our Commission to Preach the Gospel from him and therefore must not neglect to discharge our Duty in Obedience to any Power upon Earth for we must obey God rather than man But first I hope they will grant that when God Almighty gave them this Commission he did not limit it to any certain place but 't was general to Preach the Word to all Nations so that in obedience to God's Command doubtless they ought to go and Preach in those Countries where their Preaching is most wanted and will do God most service There are many Countries in the World that know nothing of Christianity and many that do have not able Ministers enough to serve their turn sure these Men that think themselves bound in Conscience to Preach wou'd much better discharge their Consciences by going into those Countries and Preaching to those poor People that are in so great want of it Christ sent his Disciples to Preach to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel The Apostles who doubtless had as universal a Commission to Preach they never went to abide in those Cities or Places where sound Teachers were settled before but they chose to go into those parts where Christianity was least known and their Preaching would do most good Why will not our Non-conformist Ministers follow their example Several of our foreign Plantations want able Ministers among them they want Universities and famous Schools to breed them in and therefore must needs be but poorly supplied If they would leave this Nation and go and Preach there 't would convince the World that they design'd nothing but God's Glory and the discharge of their own Consciences in desiring to Preach but since they do not 't is evident whatever their pretences may be that 't is self-interest and their own conveniency that makes them desire the liberty of Preaching in these Nations What have they to say to this Indeed the best of them give but a very unsatisfactory Answer hereto Mr. Baxter in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet says The Reason why they do not go to Preach among the Indians is because they cannot speak their Language and because many of them have Wives and Families which they cannot leave But for his own part he says if he were but young enough he would not trouble this censorious persecuting part of the World any longer Mr. Baxter has not been always old he was young enough when first he began to write against the Church of England Why did he not go when first he was prohibited to Preach here if he had perhaps our Divisions about Matters of Religion had been much narrower than now they are and a reconciliation much more easy between us As for their not speaking the Language there are many of the New Plantations in America c. that understand English and Latin and want able diligent Pastors among them And as to all their other Reasons for not going the leaving their Families c. they may carry them with them but surely no Reasons of this kind can come in competition with the great Advantage of propagating the Gospel of Christ and the Peace and Quiet of three Kingdoms But again They say God has commanded them to preach the Gospel and they must obey God rather than Man So God has also commanded them to obey their Governours and Magistrates and to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church and Nation in which they live Now since they must of necessity break one of these Commands by staying at home and preaching in separate Meetings and may perform both by going to preach beyond Seas certainly the best and safest way must be to doe the latter And if God Almighty has given them commission to preach as they say I am sure he has given them commission no where to disturb the Peace and Settlement of a Christian Church and State especially a true Church He bid them go and preach the Word and teach all Nations but we all know that the greatest Part of the World was then unconverted and had no Christian Teachers and Ministers orderly settled among them so that those whom Christ then sent could have come no where amiss every one of them was to make as many Converts as he could there being no limits put how far their particular Charge should extend and no farther but soon after even in the Apostles days when particular distinct Churches were gather'd and committed to the Care of particular Persons I suppose none of our Dissenters will say That any Ministers by virtue of their general Commission to teach all Nations might have come into another Pastor's Congregation or Parish and preach in a separate Meeting without Licence and draw as many People from their lawful Pastour to whose Care they were particularly committed as they could No they who did so were often condemn'd by St. Paul as appears in many of his Epistles And this is the very Case of the Church of England with relation to our present Dissenters Allowing their Commission to preach be as full as they pretend to yet it gives them no Authority to invade other mens Rights or to draw away the People from their lawful Ministers And especially since if they please they may exercise their Office in other places and do no Man wrong The Apostles had as full a Commission to preach as any of our Dissenters can pretend to and something more extraordinary and yet we don't find that they thought themselves oblig'd to preach directly in opposition to the civil Magistrate though a Heathen 'T is true for the first 300 years Christianity had not generally the Laws to countenance and defend it as now it has So that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church could not have the Command or Authority of the civil Magistrate for what they did yet they had his connivance and never preached directly in opposition to his positive command St. Paul says Acts 14. 12. They neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man neither raising up the people neither in the Synagogues nor in the City And again Acts 15. 8. Neither against the Law of the Jews neither against the Temple nor yet against Caesar have I offended any thing at all So it seems the practice of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel where they came so long as they were tolerated or conniv'd at by the Government But as soon as they were prohibited by the Magistrate they left that City or Place and went to the next but thought it no ways their Duty to oppose
the Church by Diocesan Bishops is agreeable to the practice of the best and purest Ages of the Church and to the Judgment of the wisest and holiest Fathers of it And that their Power and Jurisdiction was as absolute and extended as far or farther than any Bishops this day in England I shall shew hereafter that Episcopal Government as now settled in England has been and is at this day commended and approved of by all the most Eminent Divines beyond Seas Perhaps some may say if the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops be so agreeable to that of the Primitive Church and approved of by other reform'd Churches as we pretend it is how comes it that they all did not follow the pattern of England and become all Diocesan Churches I answer They may as well ask us Why all the Nations of the World that were subject to the Roman Emperors did not upon the decay of the Roman Empire when they resum'd their just Rights of Government to themselves become all Monarchies according to the Pattern of England Some Nations besides England Ireland and Scotland did assume Episcopal Government as Denmark Sweden c. but perhaps it was not consistent with the present Circumstances or Politick Constitution of all places at the time of the Reformation to set up Episcopal Government as indeed it was not And therefore since neither Episcopal nor any other particular kind of Government is so essential to a Church as that a true Church may not be without it in case of indispensible Necessity they put themselves some under one Form of Government some under another as was most agreeable to their present constitution but with this Caution every where That all Protestants of every whole Church be the Government what it will should be oblig'd to Conform to the Establish'd Church in which they liv'd For though every National or whole Church had a Power to chuse what kind of Government they pleased for themselves yet 't was never allow'd that particular scrupulous People among themselves had Power to do so too This Power of subdividing was never pretended to nor practis'd in any other Nation since the Reformation but in England So that though they do all allow the Antiquity and Usefulness of Episcopal Government yet since 't is not Essential to a true Church no more than that of the Presbyterian or Independent nor convenient at this time for all places some may refuse it and yet it does not follow that we in England should do so since 't is convenient for us and more agreeable to the Laws and Constitution of these Kingdoms and comes by much nearer the Practice of the Primitive Churches than any other whatsoever But they say we make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church for that we will suffer none to execute the Office of a Minister here in England unless they be ordain'd by a Bishop To this I answer 'T is plain we do not make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church For we allow all the Reform'd Churches to be true Churches and Communicate with them and yet some of them have no Diocesan Bishops 'T is true by the Laws of this Church and Nation none are to be admitted to execute the Office of a Minister in any Cathedral or Parish Church or Chapel nor to hold any Ecclesiastical Benefice within these Kingdoms but such as are willing to submit to the Orders and Government of this Church and the Laws of the Land And therefore since both the Laws of this Church and Nation do require that all Ministers who desire to serve in this Church shall declare publickly that they assent to and approve of our Form of Worship c. and are willing to use the same as the Church appoints and that they shall receive their Ordination and Licence to execute their Office from the Bishops 'T is but reasonable that such as want these Qualifications shou'd be refus'd the Liberty of executing their Office in these Kingdoms * The Church of England does not say absolutely that all those Ministers who want Episcopal Ordination are no true Ministers but only that none shall be accounted a lawful Bishop Priest or Deacon so as to execute their Function in the Church of England unless they be once Ordain'd by a Bishop as appears by the Preface to the Ordination But the reason we refuse them is not so much because that Presbyterian Ordination does not make them true Ministers according to God's Law as though no instance can be given of Ordination without a Bishop in Scripture or Antiquity but all to the contrary because they stubbornly refuse to submit to our Laws and Constitutions and contemn the lawful Authority under which God has plac'd them and commanded them that they should obey And this is evident from the Statute of 14 Car. 2. In which there is a particular Proviso That all Ministers of Foreign reform'd Churches who come into this Kingdom by the King's Permission are to be excepted out of and excus'd from the Penalties of that Act. And this Custom of requiring Conformity and Subscriptions from all who desire to be admitted to the Office of the Ministry is agreeable to the Practice of every settled Church that has been ever since Christ's days as will appear hereafter The 3d. Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our * By National Churches are meant the whole Churches of such Nations as upon the decay of the Roman Empire resum'd their just Right of Government to themselves both in Church and State National Church which we call The Church of England has no Foundation and wants Discipline All being incroach'd and swallow'd up in the Bishops and the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof But this is false for the Presbyters in our Church have as great Power in Ecclesiastical Matters as ever they had in the Primitive Church What Power are they depriv'd of by the Bishops that they had then By the Laws of our Church no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Worship can be introduc'd by the Bishops or impos'd upon any without the consent of the whole Presbytery of the Nation in Convocation who appear either in Person or by Proxy The only Authority that the Bishops of the Church of England have above the Presbytes is Government Ordination and Censures which were all appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops in the Primitive Church St. Cyprian assures us it was so in the African Church in his Third Book Ep. 10. 12. 28. 27. And so it was in St. Augustine's Time See Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 6 7 9 c. But say they the Power of Ordination is taken away from the Presbyters and lodg'd solely in the Bishops and 't is plain say they in the Apostles days the Presbyters did Ordain for Timothy was ordain'd by laying on the hands of the
not the only Bishop that had such a large Diocess for St. Chrysostom had one full as large and which contained as many Parishes he was Bishop of Constantinople and all the Territories thereto belonging and did not think it in his Conscience too large for if he did so good a Man as he would either have divided or quitted it And Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and the Territories belong to it for he says Ap. p. 781 802. Maoretis is a Region belonging to Alexandria and all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria But because Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Cotton and the rest have made choice of the Church of Carthage in Africk in St. Cyprian's time to make their appeals to Dr. Stillingfleet to avoid all Cavils as he tells us has chosen that very Church to be decided by as to the Episcopal Government now in dispute between us And therefore first he proves that there were a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage at that time and therefore not likely to be one single Congregation And this he proves out of St. Cyprian's own Epistles in his Banishment Particularly in his 5 th Book Ep. 28. he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that remain'd were hardly sufficient for their Work And that these Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and government of St. Cyprian as their Bishop appears by his own words Lib. 3. Ep. 10 and 12. to the People of Carthage he complains to them of his Presbyters that they did not reserve to their Bishop that honour due to his place for that they received Penitents to Communion without Imposition of Hands by the Bishop c. And in his Epist 28. he threatens to Excommunicate those Presbyters that should do so for the future And all the other Bishops gave their approbation to St. Cyprian for so doing And the same St. Cyprian in his 3 Book Ep. 65. tells them that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that Disobedience to him is the occasion of Schisms and Disorders See more fully concerning this matter in Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischiefs of Separation p. 228 229. c. And now since Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and the rest have agreed to appeal to the Church of Carthage we must suppose they allow no Deviations in that Church from the Primitive Institution and what that was then any one may judge And St. Augustine was another Bishop in the African Church he was Bishop of Hippo Regia the Diocess of which extended at least Forty Miles as appears by St. Augustine's own Epist 262. 'T is true the African Church came most near the Congregational way of any other the Diocess being smaller by reason of the many Sectaries there the Donatists and many others And that is the Reason Mr. Baxter and the rest express so great an Esteem for it But that their Bishopricks were much too large to serve either the Presbyterians or Independents turn and that they never allowed more than one Bishop in the largest Cities sufficiently appears by what has been said And in the African Code there is a Canon that says expresly no Bishop shall leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there See Codex Eccl. Africae c. 71. Which shows that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended into distant Places from the City as well in the African Churches as in others I shall only add to this that Calvin look'd upon it as a Thing out of dispute among Learned Men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a City in the Primitive Times but of the adjacent Country also See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 4. n. 2. But though there were never more than one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church * V. Conc. Eph. Part 2. Act. 1. yet some Bishops have had Two or more Cities in their Diocess Timothy was Bishop of Farmissus and Eudocias Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis And there have been some Bishopricks that have had no City at all in them but only Villages for there were some Countries that had no Cities in them so have we at this Day Bishops in Ireland and Wales that have no Cities in their Diocess But it cannot be prov'd that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and the extent of his Diocess was confin'd to any single Village So far from that that by the Canon of Sardica VI. all the Bishops Assembled at Sardica agree That it shall by no means be lawful to Ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the Dignity of a Bishop may not be contemptible from the meanness of the Place But says Mr. Clarkson and the rest The Apostles Ordain'd Elders in every Church and then Mr. Clarkson names the places to wit Antioch Iconium Lystra and other Villages and these Elders or Presbyters they will have Bishops But first I say That during the Apostle's days the names Bishop and Presbyter were commonly used the one for the other but not after as shall be show'd hereafter and therefore these Elders or Presbyters here spoken of may be as well taken for ordinary Presbyters or Priests as for Bishops But allowing these Presbyters were Bishops what advantage will it be to them for first it does not appear that the Apostles confin'd their Authority to those places but the contrary is evident and unless they can prove this it will not serve their turn But Secondly these Cities over which the Apostles appointed Elders were large Cities at that time by much too great to come together in one Congregation Iconium was then a Metropolitan and had many other Cities under it And the rest were all large Cities But before I conclude this point I must make one Observation and that is That Mr. Clarkson to prove that a Bishop of a City had no more but one Congregation undertakes to shew how small some Cities were but 't is remarkable he quotes for his Authority some Author who speaks of them long before there were any Bishops and because they might have been small places then will needs have them to be so in the days of the Apostles which is very ridiculous for under the Roman Emperours both the Roman and the Grecian Cities were at their height and did very much surpass both for their magnificence and number of people any that have been before or since nor is this to be wonder'd at since our Cities do now stand upon much narrower Foundations as to their constitution our Cities have seldom any Liberties half a mile beyond their Walls and are generally but an Assembly of Trades-men whereas the Roman Cities had each a Territory as it were a County belonging to it which was under the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate and the Citizens were the Lords of the adjacent Country I have now shew'd that the Government of
his own Memory to retain all his wants and the wants and necessities of the People so in his Mind but that something or other will very oft be forgotten which may be avoided by using of a well compos'd Form But again Can we reasonably imagine that God Almighty can be pleas'd with vain repetitions and with bald and unproper and too often nonsensical expressions such as usually attend their extempore Prayers Doubtless he cannot for where he has given Judgment and Wit and Eloquence he expects it should be us'd in his Service as well as in our worldly business Our Saviour bids us When we pray not to use vain repetitions nor think to be heard for our much speaking Matth. 6. 7. And Solomon Eccles 5. 1 2. says Keep thy feet when thou goest to the house of the Lord and be not nash with thy mouth and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God for God is in Heaven and thou on Earth therefore let thy words be few How agreeable now this Doctrine is to the practice of the Dissenters in their rash approaching to God with a long inconsiderate Prayer let any Man judge When they made their Addresses to the late King James they drew it up with all the caution and premeditation imaginable and every Sentence was carefully considered on by several of the best Heads among them but they address the great King of Heaven with the rash and inconsiderate expressions of one Person and he perhaps a weak onetoo But some of them say Why should not Ministers be tied to a Form of Preaching as well as of Praying Why sure there is a great deal of difference between Preaching and Praying Preaching is directed to a Congregation which is made up of several People who have different Capacities and Apprehensions and therefore require different Phrases and Arguments to move them Some are drawn with one Argument some with another some apprehend a Man's meaning by one Expression some by another according as they are suited to their several Capacities so that 't is impossible to frame a Form in Preaching to answer all these ends But Prayers are directed to one God who is always the same and not to be pleased with variety of Phrases I shall conclude this Point with this observation That those who are most inveterate against Praying by Forms do daily use the same individual Form themselves word for word throughout the whole year as any one that frequent their publick or private Meetings may observe The Third sort of Pleas which the Dissenters use for Separation are such as relate to their Consciences For say they What tho' the Terms of Communion with the Church of England be lawful since we cannot satisfy our Consciences that they are so We must not act against our Consciences for that were sin in us For St. Paul says Let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind Rom. 14. But I answer first this Scripture is meant of indifferent things and no other as appears by the coherence of the words with the whole Chapter For the Apostle is there speaking of Meats Times Days c. and blames the Romans for condemning and quarrelling with one another about them But Secondly 'T is plain that * Note when we refuse any thing injoin'd by Authority we must be certain that the thing injoin'd is unlawful for a doubting Conscience will not excuse our disobedience A doubting Conscience is when the Conscience is in such a perfect aequilibrium or suspence as that there appears no more reason on the one side of the question than on the other in such case the command of Authority turns the Scales and makes it necessary for us to obey since for ought we know the thing may be as well lawful as not Scruples of Conscience will not excuse from sin in some Cases For 't is agreed by all that Conscience will not excuse from sin unless all proper helps and means are us'd to inform our Judgments and to come to the right knowledge of the thing scrupled This Mr. Baxter owns in his Dispute of Church Government p. 483. where he says That if a Man through ignorance or prejudice takes unlawful things to be lawful or lawful things to be unlawful this will not excuse him in his disobedience Suppose then for Instance that the Magistrate imposes a thing which he lawfully may impose as that all Men should begin the publick Worship at an hour and end at an hour The Quakers they say This is stinting of the Spirit and therefore sinful and that they cannot in Conscience Communicate with us till it be remov'd I will ask a Presbyterian or Independent whether this be a sinful Separation or not they will own it is notwithstanding their pretended Scruple of Conscience For the sin must needs lie some where either on those who impose the thing or on those who separate not on those who impos'd it because they allow the thing injoyn'd to be lawful therefore it must be on those who separate because they do not inform themselves truly of the lawfulness of the thing scrupled And indeed if a bare Scruple of Conscience will justify Separation the Anabaptists and all other Sects may as well justify their Separation from the Presbyterians and Independents as they can do theirs from the Church of England And by the same Rule we may subdivide till there be as many Religions as Men. I grant that the Obligations of Conscience are the greatest that can be and to act against the clear Dictates of a Man's Conscience is a very great sin but this must be meant of a Conscience when all due care and diligence has been us'd to rectify and inform it And then what is this to the case of our Dissenters Do they separate from the Church out of pure Conscience yes say they doubtless we do But have they us'd all proper means to inform their judgments and come to the knowledge of the truth Surely they will not say they have Are not the greatest part of the Dissenters a poor illiterate sort of People who know nothing of the Controversie between us nor ever trouble their heads about it but will go to the Meetings because their Fathers and Mothers did so before them and will rail at the Church tho' ask them what is amiss in it seriously and they cannot tell you And as for those few of the better sort among them who perhaps have had greater advantages of Education is it not remarkable that they Read and Converse altogether on one side and associate themselves into Clubs and Cabals of such who are of the same Opinion with themselves but avoid all occasions of creating the least intimacy with any who differ from them in Opinion And if any shall but offer to inform them tho' in never so peaceable and friendly a manner does it not prove the occasion of an eternal Quarrel or at least put a stop to any farther intimacy