SInce it is the Duty of every Christian to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church, and heartily to endeavour that there may be no Divisions amongst us; but that we may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, 1 Cor. 1.10. In one spirit, and with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel, Phil. 1.27. And since, when one party of Christians separate from another, it must either be for a just cause, or without a just cause; it will follow, that where-ever there is Schism in any Church, and one Congregation set up in opposition to another, and refu­sing to join in Communion with the other, there must, of neces­sity, be a sin either on the one side or the other; either in them who give the others a just ground of separation, or in them who separate without a just ground.

That there is a separation between you and us, and thereby a Schism made in our National Church, is too apparent; but where the sin of this Division lies, whether upon u [...], for giving you a just cause of dividing, or upon you for separating from us without any such cause; this is what on both sides we ought to enquire after, and to reform it where ever we find it. And in order to the making of this discovery, I do (as I trust, in the fear of God, and in a true spirit of Meekness and Charity) beseech you all calmly and seri­ously to weigh and consider these following things which I offer unto you.

First, Is there any of those things which are necessary to the sal­vation of a Christian, wanting in the Communion of our Church? Do we not profess and teach the true Christian Faith in all its funda­mental [Page 2]Articles? And if some of our Divines do perhaps differ from yours in the determination, or rather the manner of expressing of some Theological Points; will any one venture to say, that the ex­plicit belief of such Doctrines in difference, is absolutely necessary unto Salvation? Do we not require all men to lead vertuous and holy lives? And is any part of Christ's Institution omitted by us in the Administration either of Baptism or the Lord's Supper? Or what is there more required by God, in order to any man's Salva­tion, than a true Faith, an holy Life, to be admitted into the Church by Baptism, and to own our Communion with it by the frequent participation of the Lord's Supper? In short, if we are deficient in any thing which is necessary to Salvation, let us know what it is that is wanting amongst us, and let the necessity of it be proved, and then if we receive it not, the Sin is ours.

Secondly, is there any thing required by us from those who Com­municate with us, which is a Sin, and therefore not to be practised with a good Conscience? However unnecessary or impertinent any thing may be esteemed, yet nothing is to be looked upon as a Sin but what is contrary to the Law of God: Are then any of our Constitutions contrary to God's Law? Or has God any where for­bid us to use the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, a Ring in the Ce­lebration of Marriage, a Surplice in Divine Service, the posture of kneeling at the reception of the Lord's Supper, or any of those Rites and Ceremonies which are appointed to be used amongst us? And can any thing be called a Sin which God has no where forbid? But if you shall say, that tho the bare use of these things is not for­bid, yet we use them after a superstitious manner, whereby they be­come sinful. I intreat you to consider that we have sufficiently declared, that we place no holiness in any such things as these, (wherein our Superstition, if any there were, could only consist) but that we only use them as things in themselves indifferent, or­dained by human Authority for decency and order, and at any time alterable by the same or the like Authority that appointed them. To conclude this Point, either such things as are indifferent in them­selves, may possibly be used without Superstition, as Circumstances in the worship of God, or else it will scarce be possible to perform any outward Worship at all without Superstition: For outward [Page 3]Worship cannot be performed without Outward Circumstances; And no Man sure will pretend that all the Outward Circumstances of Worship are prescribed or regulated by God himself. Since then our Rites and Ceremonies of Religion are things in themselves indif­ferent, and therefore such as may be used, without Superstition, do you your selves teach us how we shall more effectually disclaim all Superstition, in the use of them, than we already do: And if we give you not satisfaction in the matter, the fault is justly ours. But to charge us with Superstition in the use of those things which do not necessarily imply that sin in themselves, and that at the same time, when we do positively renounce, not only the Name of Superstition, but also the thing it self; In my poor opinion, is not so agreeable unto Christian Charity, which believeth all things, and hopeth all things, 1 Cor 13.7.

Thirdly, If then in the Communion of our Church there be nei­ther any thing wanting which is necessary to Salvation, nor, on the other side, any thing prescribed in it which is sinful; does it not apparently follow from hence that our Communion is at least inno­cent? And that any Christian may, with a good Conscience, join with us in God's Worship and Sacraments, since thereby he needs not involve himself in any sin, either of Commission or Omission. If you shall say that our Communion, tho' to us, who are persuaded of the Lawfulness of it, it may be innocent; yet to you would be sinful; because some of you judge it absolutely unlawfull to Com­municate with us (and no Man ought to act directly against his own Conscience) and others of you do, at least, doubt whether it be lawful or not; Whereas in such Cases as these, every man ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind, Ro. 14.5. And he that doubteth is damned if he Conform, as well as if he eat, because he Conformeth not of Faith (that is to say, is not throughly persuaded of the Law­fulness of what he does) for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, v. 23. To those who judge our Communion unlawful, I must again urge what I have already said in the two preceding Paragraphs, and tell them that their Judgment in this is not only false, but also ap­parently uncharitable, except they can shew either that something is wanting, and not to be had in our Church, which yet God has com­manded; or something appointed and required which God has for­bidden, [Page 4]for nothing can be absolutely sinful and unlawful, except it be to omit the one, or to do the other. But as for those who only doubt, that is to say, are not well assured, whether it be lawful to Conform to our Communion or not: If they are not able by any means to clear their doubts, and satisfie their Scruples; yet surely, in such a Case, they ought to choose that way which is most safe, and free from the danger of sin; and if there be a plain and evident Law of God which direct; them one way, they ought not to forsake that way, and go another, upon such suggestions as they own to be but obscure and doubtful. Now, what can be more evidently com­manded, than that we should seek and promote the Peace and U­nity of the Church (as I have said at the beginning of this Ad­dress). And that we should give obedience unto the commands of lawful Authority, Rom. 13.1, 1 Pet. 2.13. But, on the other side, the case in hand supposes a man to be only doubtful (and not re­solved either way) whether it be lawful to conform to the Rites and Ceremonies by Law Established in our Church; Now, if, after a reasonable time for enquiry, he is not able to determine this doubt, so as positively to satisfy himself upon solid grounds, that such Con­formity is unlawful; what reason can be given why such a doubt (which probably may be the effect of his fancy, or prejudice only, and not of any sober and impartial reasoning, because it never comes to a determination) should be put in the ballance against those plain commands of God which I have mentioned: And as long as such a man remains doubtful as to both sides, why may not the above ob­jected words of St. Paul be more strongly urged for Conformity than against it? For why should a man refuse to conform, if he be only doubtful, and not fully perswaded in his own mind, that he ought not to conform? And why may I not say, that he that doubteth is damned, if he refuseth conformity, rather than if he conform? because he refu­seth not of Faith; (that is to say, is not throughly perswaded of the lawfulness of such a refusal; there being two plain Laws of God which direct him to conform, and nothing but a doubt, which is raised but upon obscure grounds, that restrains him from it) for whatsoever is not of Faith (whether it be an action, or a refusal) is sin. But if you shall say, that to impose such things upon you in the worship and service of God, as are in themselves indifferent, [Page 5]and not commanded by any law of God, is an infringement of your Christian liberty; which you are bound not to yield or give way to, but to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free; Gal. 5.1. I answer, that if any Church should offer to impose the belief or practice of any thing, as an essential part of Religion, and necessary to Salvation, which God hath not particularly required; Against such an Imposition as this every Christian ought to stand up, and assert his Christian liberty; as the Apostles did against the Jewish Ceremonies, which some would have imposed upon the Church as absolutely necessary to Salvation, Acts 15.1. And this is what the Apostle exhorts the Galatians unto; and is, as far as I can understand, the true notion of Christian liberty, as it is stated in the holy Scriptures: For if way should be given to such sort of Impo­sitions as these; in process of time so many things (through the pride and vanity of some, and the ignorance and mistakes of others) might come to be introduced into the Christian Religion, as might render it (as the Jewish was) a yoke too heavy to be born, Acts 15.10. But to plead Christian liberty as an exemption from such Laws and Rules which an Established Church shall think fit to make a­bout things, in themselves professedly indifferent, and only for order and regularities sake; as it has no foundation that I can find either in Scripture or Reason; so the apparent consequence of it must be, not that decency and order which St. Paul directs the Church to provide for in the service of God, 1 Cor. 14.40. (which cannot be maintained without some established Rules in circumstantial mat­ters). But, on the contrary, that disorder and confusion which we may imagin must be in such an Assembly, where every man shall esteem it unlawful to demean himself according to any human pre­scribed Rules; and where therefore every the most ignorant person will be guided by nothing but the suggestions of his own thoughts, in all such things as God himself has not particularly determined: For the avoiding of which confusion and irregularity, every settled Church has always found it necessary to follow that direction which St. Paul long since gave; and to make and prescribe certain Rules for the establishment of Decency and Order in their Congregations. And if our Liturgy be an infringement of Christian Liberty, not only all other Churches are guilty of the same, but even your own [Page 6]Directory, which imposes some things which in themselves are in­different, cannot be excused from it. And if you shall say that our Ceremonies are too numerous and burthensome, besides that others who perhaps may be as competent Judges, are of another opinion: If this were really so, yet the most it would amount to, would be only an inconvenience, (of which hereafter) and not a sin. And tho St. Austin complained of the number and burden of Ceremo­nies in his time; yet we never find that he looked upon that as any cause for separating from the Established Church. And lastly, If you shall say that many of our Rites and Ceremonies are altoge­ther unnecessary, and that the Governors of a Church ought not to lay unnecessary impositions upon the people; besides that what some may think unnecessary, others may judge to be expedient. Let us suppose that our Governors were guilty of a fault in imposing some needless things upon us, yet will it not follow that our com­pliance even with such things, for Peace and Unity's sake, would be any Sin, but rather, I think, a vertue: And therefore upon the whole, I cannot but conclude, that any good Christian may, at least very innocently, join himself to the Communion of our Church.

Fourthly, Then if the Communion of our Church be Lawful and Innocent in its self; what imaginable reason can there be why you should refuse to join with us in it? For sure you do not think that every Man is at his free Liberty, either to join himself to the Esta­blished Church of a place, or to set up a distinct Church for him­self, for this would be the way not only to divide, but crumble the Church; till the different fancies of Men should bring it to nothing. And if you shall tell us that some of our Constitutions are not so conveniently settled, as they should be for promoting the Glory of God, and the Practice of Piety; Besides that there never was any Hu­man Appointment so perfect as to be free from all defect and in­convenience; And that what may seem inconvenient to one, may perhaps be thought convenient by another (there being scarce any particular Rules of convenience so fixed, but what will be different­ly thought of by different Men, according to the diversity of their Apprehensions and Circumstances). I desire to know whether one or more bare inconveniences, which yet are, or may be, free from sin, can be a sufficient reason to separate from an Established [Page 7]Church? And if so, what Church is there upon the face of the Earth from which this principle will not justifie a Division? It is indeed the duty of every Man soberly and peaceably to seek for the Rectifying, even any inconveniencies which he perceives to be in the Church: But since it is a Rule of Charity that it beareth all things, endureth all things, suffereth long, is not easily provoked, and seeketh not her own, 1 Cor. 13, 4. &c. Methinks every good Chri­stian should be contented to bear, even with many inconveniencies (untill such time as God should touch the hearts of those in whose power it should be to remedy them) rather than occasion a Divi­sion in the Church, which, besides the sin, is certainly a greater inconvenience than all those which you can complain of put together. But if you shall say that you find your selves more Edified in Godli­ness and Piety by your own Meetings, than by frequenting our As­semblies; Not to ascribe this to your prejudice and prepossession, nor to make any comparisons which may seem odious, or may tend to exasperate; I shall only tell you if this be a real truth, and not a bare fancy only; it may seem to be a reason why you should hold some Assemblies, besides the Parochial Congregations, for your mutual Edification, and to provoke others to emulation; which might be a means to promote a general reformation of all neglects or disorders in the Church, (provided that nothing were therein said or done which might give any of your own members or others, a just occasion to look upon you as a separate Church set up in op­position, and not in subordination to the establish'd one). But what reason you can ground upon this for a down-right sepa­ration, and an utter refusal of our Communion; I confess I am not able to find. But if you shall say that you do not absolutely separate from us, nor utterly renounce our Communion, but that you sometimes come to our publick Worship, and receive the Sacra­ment of the Lord's Supper after our prescribed Form, which is by some of you asserted and pleaded for under the name of occasional Communion; I desire to be informed, if occasional Communion with us be lawful, why should constant Communion with us be thought unlawful? If it be a sin to join with us in God's Worship and Sacraments, it ought not to be done so much as once; but if it be no sin, why may it not be done always? And would it not be [Page 8]much more agreeable to the temper of Christianity, and the Spirit of Peace and Unity, for you constantly to frequent our Assemblies, who own you may lawfully do it, and to hold your own other Meet­ings either after or before ours; rather than by holding them just at the same time with ours, to keep the people as much as you can, strangers from our Congregations, than alienating their affections from us; cherishing an opinion in many of them, that our way of Worship is utterly unlawful, and widening, or at least keeping open, that breach which otherwise in a little time, would probably close, and heal of it self.

The design of what I have hitherto said, has been to lay the matter home to your Consciences, to perswade you to embrace the Communion of our Church, and thereby supersede the necessity of a Toleration: But if all we can say or argue upon this matter will not prevail, then,

Fifthly, I would gladly know what it is which you aim at, and propose to your selves in an Act of Toleration? Is it only to have the liberty of Serving God in that way which you think to be best, and thereby to be free from persecution, and to go the readiest way, as you suppose, to Heaven, without let or molestation? Or is it to lay a foundation for the overthrow of the Established Church, and to get, in time, the whole Ecclesiastical and Civil Power into your own hands, as is already done by those of your persuasion in Scotland? If the latter of these be your design, sure you must think us no less than fools and mad-men, if we give way to our own Overthrow & Ruin; and do not give you all the Opposition that possibly we can; but if the former be only, and adequately your desire, why are you so Zealous against the Sacramental Test (as it is called) as even to refuse an Act of Toleration, rather then have this Clause inserted in it, That no one shall be capable of any Office, or Employment in the Com­mon-Wealth, who shall not so many times in the Year Receive the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, according to the Established Form? I am sensible, That Men may have strange Notions, Pre­judices and Scruples, in matters of Religion; and that what seems to be the highest and clearest Reason to one Man, may not appear Convincing, or Concluding to another. And therefore, I do not wonder that good and well meaning Men, tho' mistaken, should [Page 9]be very earnest for Liberty of Conscience, to be clear from such Impositions as they think they cannot lawfully submit to, and to have the freedom of serving God in such a way as they apprehend may be pleasing to him. But when Men are not contented with this, except they may have also a share in the Government, and be made capable of Employments of Power, Trust, and Profit; I think it is very apparent, That they design and aim at some thing else be­sides the Salvation of their Souls, and freedom from Persecution; And it becomes the Wisdom of every Government, carefully to con­sider even the remote, if probable, consequences of what they do; and however, it may be fit to deal gently with tender Conscien­ces, yet that State which shall seem to Encourage or set up two several Parties, differing from each other in matters of Religion, (which strangely Unites, or divides the Affections of Men) to make Factions one against the other, and to stand in perpetual di­stinct Opposition and Competition one with the other for all the Places of Trust, Power, and Profit in the Common-Wealth; I believe will be thought by most Wise Men to be out in its Poli­ticks.

But if I am told that this last Question which I have put, contains in it a False and Uncharitable Suggestion against the Non-Confor­mists; and that they have no manner of Design against the present Establishment of the Church, as is pretended, but only desire to stand upon equal Terms with the rest of His Majesty's Subjects as to Civil Matters; I answer that, supposing all this to be True; yet no one knows but their Successors, in the next Generation, may endeavour to advance a little farther than what is proposed by their Predecessors in this. And since the Presbyterian P [...]rty in these Kingdoms did in the late Wars of 1641. actually overthrow the Established Episcopal Church, and have never yet Publickly Renounced those Principles by which they then Acted, nor Testi­fied any Repentance for what they did. And since the Pres­byterians of Scotland have now again Overturned the Episcopal Church of that Kingdom; have we not all the Reason that can be to fear that, tho' our present Non-Conformists may keep a kind and friendly Correspondence with us; because we have been [...] lately joined against a common Enemy, yet in the next Generation [Page 10]Heats and Animosities may probably arise between their Successors and ours, which if not before hand carefully prevented, may tend to the disturbance, or perhaps the Ruin both of Church and State: And ought not every Government to provide for Posterity, as well as for the Present Generation? And thus have I Declared, or at least Suggested, my thoughts in this great Affair, with all the bre­vity and plainness that I could; and I hope with that Mildness which becomes a peaceable Man and a Christian: How far what I have said may prevail upon any Man, I know not, but I hope that no one can take any Offence, either at what I have said, or at the manner wherein I have expressed my self; and if I have missed of that Good which I designed, yet at least it will be some satisfaction to me, to think that I have done no hurt; and whilst I have been Pleading for Unity, have said nothing which should tend to the breach of Charity.