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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.